Hello all. 

 

My current Skoda Octavia vRS diesel will be returned in Feb19 so I'm looking for a replacement and due to an expanding family I'm looking at the Kodiaq and possibly a Superb. I'm 6'4" and on longer journeys prticualry I need the seat right back and down to get comfortable which obviously impacts the space behind for a passenger or baby seat. Popped in to my local Skoda yesterday and sat in both and they'd both fit the bill I'm going to try and arrange extended test drives of each so I can get them home see how they fit on the drive and how the load space works for us. There a re some stock cars around but seem to be the SE tech the one I sat in was and SE L.

 

Is the 150 bhp and 190bhp the same unit but with different tunning or are they totally different engines? 

 

We don't need the 7 seats but may be a nice to have. 

 

Any experience and opinions welcome.

You never realise how useful 7 seats are until you’ve got them. Being able to go somewhere with the family and grandparents in one car is so much more convenient!

 

As for the engines, I assume you’re looking at the diesel ones? Think they’re both the same 2.0 unit, but I’m no expert. Have you considered the petrol units? Depends on your circumstances, obviously, but if you’re not doing the mileage then don’t just assume you need a diesel in a big thing like the Kodiaq - you really don’t.

 

Personally, I much prefer the higher position of the Kodiaq over the Superb (and definitely over the Octavia vRS, which was also my last car!). I’ve also gone DSG this time, and as a result it’s a very relaxing drive.

 

But at the end of the day, it’s always what works best for you and your family.

I do have  190hp engine...its bloody sharp especially with XLR throttle tuning. 4x4 must have here in Estonia and I never go back to lower car. Its comfy to get in and out. Better view etc.

Tried Superb...sorry but I didn't see any difference with my old superb...

Thanks for the replies. I have a DTUK tunning on my box on my vRS so my thinking was to possibly utilise this but the bhp figures threw me on the kodiaq I had something in my head that the internals was different between the 150 bhp and more powerful unit. 

 

It a tough one the Kodiak or Superb are both overkill for what we need for 90% plus of our driving however my other halves family are a 6 hour trip away that we make at least 4 or 5 times a year fully loaded up and being comfortable makes the trip far more palatable.

DTUK can change the mapping for cheap if you send the box over to them.

I have a Kodiaq 190PS TDI and it's alright. Basically same power as the Octy RS TDI but with slightly more torque. I'm however looking to upgrade to a Kodiaq RS. My other car is a 2015 Golf R wagon running 350hp/470nm though so you might find the Kodiaq 190 more than enough.

Edited 30 October, 20187 yr by ZacDaMan72

Yeah the Kodiak will be a tool for lugging the family about but a bit of torque and power for motorway cruising would welcome. I'm being told 19 week build time at the moment but looking around wouldn't have much faith in that estimate.

Just moved from a superb to a kodiaq and love it but there was definitely more space in the superb for taller people. Both my sons are over 6'4 and never heard can you move your seat forward expecting to on the bear. That said we love it

Back seat are also adjustable, maybe your ones are just in the very front position?

I am 6"2 and could easily sit behind myself.

On 29/10/2018 at 18:46, Gwald said:

Thanks for the replies. I have a DTUK tunning on my box on my vRS so my thinking was to possibly utilise this but the bhp figures threw me on the kodiaq I had something in my head that the internals was different between the 150 bhp and more powerful unit. 

 

My understanding is that the 190ps unit has a different turbo and injectors. There may be other changes, as if I recall, Skoda list a significant weight difference between the equivalent 150ps and 190ps Kodiaqs.

 

We have a 190ps Kodiaq and much preferred it to the Superb that we test drove. We did a 7.5 hour drive from Scotland at the weekend, 4 up, and it was fantastically comfortable and effortless. My daughter complained on the way up as I made her sit up front and keep me company - the back seats in the Kodiaq with the optional tables are a really spacious and comfortable place to be - nicer than the front passenger seat in my opinion.

I'm going to buck the trend and say don't do it! I went from an octavia vrs diesel - best car I've ever owned - to a Kodiak 150 (couldn't have the 190 as it doesn't come in manual) and have regretted it every day since. Unless you need the extra 2 seats you get barely any extra space realistically over the octavia. And forevermore you have to get seasick while going round roundabouts compared with the octavia's great handling.

Just now, Dr_Pepper said:

Unless you need the extra 2 seats you get barely any extra space realistically over the octavia

 

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong and misleading. There is so much more space in the Kodiaq, both for passengers and in the boot. That's a fact that can't really be argued by any measure.

 

1 minute ago, Dr_Pepper said:

you have to get seasick while going round roundabouts compared with the octavia's great handling

 

You're comparing an SUV - which sits higher by design - to an Octavia with a lower ride height than normal anyway. Of course you're going to get body roll. May I suggest that slowing down a little more for roundabouts might be an idea?

1 minute ago, WiggosSideburns said:

 

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong and misleading. There is so much more space in the Kodiaq, both for passengers and in the boot. That's a fact that can't really be argued by any measure.

 

 

May I suggest that slowing down a little more for roundabouts might be an idea?

You can, and i do. But i was just giving an argument among many to keep the Octavia.

 

I stand by what I said about the practicality. The rear legroom maybe has an extra inch but as for the rest Yes there are certainly more litres of space but these are mainly up high where typically you don't use them.

1 minute ago, Dr_Pepper said:

The rear legroom maybe has an extra inch

 

If you slide the middle row back all the way, there is a whole lot more than an extra inch.

 

1 minute ago, Dr_Pepper said:

there are certainly more litres of space but these are mainly up high where typically you don't use them

 

No, it's wider, and longer. Trust me, I've done enough trips to IKEA to know that I can fit bigger boxes in the boot of the Kodiaq... boxes that would have had to go on the roof rack when I had the Octavia. Also, we can put all our usual holiday stuff under the tonneau cover in the Kodiaq, whereas it filled the boot to the roof in the Octavia. And the practicality of sitting 2+1+1 to give a long load space whilst still carrying four in comfort is pretty awesome.

 

I don't disagree one iota with your original comment about the Octavia having better handling (you'd expect that) - but I can't see how anyone can argue that there isn't vastly more space (and usable space at that) in the Kodiaq.

 

The only thing I do miss is the loadspace under the variable boot floor in the Octavia - there's a small amount in the Kodiaq, but not as much because of the rear seats. But it's a small price to pay.

My Kodiaq is with the dealer at the moment for them to investigate coolant loss. I’ve been given an Octavia Estate Scout as a courtesy car and I completely echo Wiggos comments. The Kodiaq is night and day better, and I didn’t appreciate that until driving the Octavia. 

 

The Octavia is much noisier - tyre roar and engine noise - it makes it a lot more tiring on long journeys. It feels more cramped inside - the steering wheel doesn’t seem to adjust for height! And the boot looks big but is definitely a lot smaller than the Kodiaq’s. I turned up at the dealer with my bike rack sat in the boot of the Kodiaq. I left it there as there was no chance of fitting it in the Octavia without dropping the seats - the boot is too narrow. 

 

The upsides to the Octavia - the fuel economy is much better. My drive to work yesterday in the Kodiaq got 43mpg. 7C colder today yet the Octavia managed 52mpg. (2l Diesel engine by the feel). I also prefer the stereo - proper knobs to adjust the volume and buttons to access the key functions. 

18 minutes ago, MrTrilby said:

I also prefer the stereo - proper knobs to adjust the volume and buttons to access the key functions.

 

To be fair, that's nothing to do with Octavia vs Kodiaq, more Columbus vs Amundsen (or old-style Columbus).

 

Love the look of the big screen with no knobs - very modern and make the car look 'posh' if you ask me. Hated the usability of it at first, but now I'm used to it I don't think it's all bad. Biggest pain is zooming in/out on the map... that's definitely easier with the twist of a knob (ooo-er!).

The Kodiaq is exactly 3cm longer than the Octavia. If the load length is longer, it's marginal. Loading my bikes in whole was easier in the Octavia because of the shape of the boot and the fact that it's lower.

 

I think maybe the reason we see it so differently is the variable floor. I didn't have one in mine, didn't want one, and without it there's a lot more useable space in the boot.

We went from an Octavia Scout to the Kodiaq.

 

The Kodiaq is bigger inside, but not significantly, or vastly noticeably so.

 

We didn't have the variable boot floor in the Octavia and the boot was huge, yes the roof is lower but then so is the floor. I haven't done a like-for-like test but it doesn't feel as though the boot on the Kodiaq is any bigger, a different shape perhaps. The fact a few of us have reused their Octavia boot floor protectors in the Kodiaq (an almost perfect / identical fit) might suggest the gains, if any are to be had elsewhere.

 

The Kodiaq is the better car by far, it doesn't feel quite so 'built to a budget' as the Octavia, I'm sure it is but then the budget is a fair chunk bigger.

 

When in the mood I was able to drive quite spiritedly in the Octavia, whereas I don't think the Kodiaq ever wants to be rushed, and that isn't just down to the engine.

 

But this is all obvious, two very different cars with different needs to be met.

 

The Kodiaq is the better car, but then it is more expensive. If you are able to make some trade offs (7 seats, ride height, an inch of rear leg room for the kids etc.) then the Octavia could easily be a viable alternative.

 

The extra money for the Kodiaq is well worth it in my opinion.

 

The lack of knobs on the screen looks nice, but I too missed the ability to quickly zoom out and back in on the sat nav yesterday. Given the choice I'd welcome them back.

 

Edited 31 October, 20187 yr by silver1011

4 hours ago, WiggosSideburns said:

Biggest pain is zooming in/out on the map...

 

I remember reading in the manual it could be done somehow with right scrolling wheel on the steering wheel?

Or did I misread?

 

Edit: It was for digital diplay maps.

Edited 31 October, 20187 yr by linni

On 31/10/2018 at 08:49, Dr_Pepper said:

The Kodiaq is exactly 3cm longer than the Octavia. If the load length is longer, it's marginal. Loading my bikes in whole was easier in the Octavia because of the shape of the boot and the fact that it's lower.

 

I think maybe the reason we see it so differently is the variable floor. I didn't have one in mine, didn't want one, and without it there's a lot more useable space in the boot.

That's what I keep telling my wife but she still wants a bloody SUV

1 hour ago, TonyTonic said:

That's what I keep telling my wife but she still wants a bloody SUV

 

Just want London needs... another bloody SUV clogging up the roads .

IMO the Kodiak is probably one of the more practical SUVs, I was impressed when I looked at one and thought it had quite a good load area and room in the back, but if space is up there on the list of priorities you would never buy an SUV, you would buy a Superb estate

Edited 7 November, 20187 yr by SuperbTWM

Noticed this on the French Skoda website.

 

The MkIII Superb Estate quotes 660 litres (below the load cover)...

 

 

The Kodiaq 5-seater boasts 720 litres, so 60 litres more than the Superb...

 

54 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

Noticed this on the French Skoda website.

 

The MkIII Superb Estate quotes 660 litres (below the load cover)...

 

 

The Kodiaq 5-seater boasts 720 litres, so 60 litres more than the Superb...

 

 

 

That just means they put the load cover higher up in the Kodiak 

 

I'm not surprised though TBH it is a big car, what helps is the back is a lot more squared off whereas modern estates have gone all stylish and have a sloping rear

I changed to the Kodiaq from a Superb Estate, and find the Kodiaq offers more space.

 

Rear passenger legroom LOOKS less, but isn’t, as there’s a greater drop from seat to floor (so your calves take less front-back distance) and your feet go more easily under the front seats.  Several times a year, I pack in 5 people and 9 suitcases, containing the same kit.  It definitely goes more easily into the Kodiaq.

 

I do have the 5-seater version, though (which is a fair comparison against the only-ever-5-seat Superb?)