Superb 1 vs Superb 2

[bobiwan]

Hello to everyone!
      As I am planing on buying a new vehicle in mid-future, I have come to the decision that Skoda Superb mk1(most likely 2.8 V6 all extras) is the most suitable for my taste.Though I am finding it hard to get some accurate numbers regarding the maintenance costs - as most people on the forums go with their own terms as - it is cheap, expensive, which are quite subjective. Coming from this thoughts although Superb 1 is better looking interior mainly(Mk2 imho has ugly rear) to me compared to the MK2 - the later seems to be just a lot better in terms of practicality(twin door, folding rear seats), equipment(4x4) and the model is like levelled up a lot for its price. So basically my questions are the following: is the second edition maintenance costs(lets say 2.0 FSI/TDI) comparable to the first and if some numbers will be well appreciated and isnt the Superb the worse when comes to buying second hand in comparison to the Passat B7?

[MilanM]

I hope @Nackuk will answer you.

He did have Mk1 and now drive Mk2.

 

 

[bigjohn]

I also went from a MK1 to a MK2 both having amazing interior space for 4 people (tight for 5)

 

Whilst I had my MKI for 10 years and it was a mechanically bullet proof, fantastic riding, economical mile muncher there were a few things to note:-

• The seats in the MKI were more to my taste re comfort etc
• The headlights were awful
• Noisy when slow moving or at tickover (was a 1.9 pd 100 so this wouldn't be an issue with the v6)
• Port injection v6 would have a drink problem and later ones (after £500+ band introduced) would have very high road fund licence
• Front suspension has its issues (very complex, prone to failure and expensive to fix as things seize up)
• Pollen filter housing can have issues re leaks
• Plenum chamber can fll with water when drain holes bung (see above and can take out the servo)
• They are all getting on a bit
• Rust can be a problem (well was with my 2003)

 

With the MK II things to note:-

• Quieter with most engines (except possibly the old 1.9 pd):-
• Comfortable car
• I like the twin door - huge capacity, easy to load as a hatch and great for ferries/chunnel/multistory as a boot.
• Really refined at all speeds (amazing driving long distances at high speed through Europe)
• Lighter on tyres
• Other than servicing no work has been done on it after 70k miles and 5 years although if it needs doing most of the usual jobs (brakes, bearings, shocks etc) are very easy to do.
• Petrol tank is smaller
• Battery seems tiny

Mine is just the S model poverty spec petrol FL twindoor but the model to go for would be a facelift v6 MKII (late 63 plate+)

 

Edited 4 February, 2019 by bigjohn

[bobiwan]

Thank you for the detailed answer bigjohn . 
I find the first model seats comfortable as well. Doesn`t the second superb has less leg room for the driver? I am searching for the most comfortable and quiet of the both. Of course if the maintenance costs of the superb 2 are >> costs of superb 1, i will be heading towards it.  As for the headlights, doesn`t the elegance model has a xenon headlight option?  

[Nackuk]

Personally I preferred my 2003 1.9td 130 MK1. Nice lines, powerful engine, lovely cream interior, economical to run. I wasn't after a fast car, and if driven fast they aren't great for cornering. They are wonderful for motor way miles the way it rolls over the road, unlike the Mk2. My Mk2 had 18inch wheels which I have already changed to 16" to get a better ride. And while improved isn't a patch on the Mk1. In the time I had it 8 years and it got to 168K miles before someone crashed into it, the worse problem I had was the aircon pressure sensor went on the blink, but there was no signs that it was the problem. It did 166K miles on one clutch. I did all my own maintenance on the car, once you learned how to take the front off it was great to work on. I never had any trouble from the suspension. If the standard 130bhp isn't enough they are easily mapped to 160bhp. The interior of the Mk1 is more to my classic likening and I would say the Mk2 is not as comfy. The MK1 has more character and is nicer to drive. When you change gear you change gear and feel it, on the mk2 it is just like a feelingless switch box. The Mk1 does not have sports car like driving and if you intend to drive spritely its the wrong car for you. If you are going to cruise it is great.

 

So what does the MK2 offer more than the Mk1:

 

170BHP engine as standard (if you choice the right one).

Hatch back big boot access - this is better than the salon Mk1.

Less rust creeping in.

Better front lights.

 

What do I miss from my Mk1?

Classic lines.

Lovely interior

Fast.

Very ecomonical.

Easy to do maintenance on.

Boot switch on drivers door.

Rear heated seats (hay I let my dad drive it sometimes).

The comfier seats front and back.

 

If I had my choice I'd have another Mk1, I did look at pre 2005 however they are old now, high mileage and I guess would never have been looked after like my own so I went for Mk2 which my dad already has. Am I disappointed with it compared t my Mk1? Yes.

 

Had to write this quick...sorry for any errors.

Edited 5 February, 2019 by Nackuk
changes

[MilanM]

I coudnt agree more! You have heard best advice <3

Choose wisely

[Gizmo]

Having owned 4 Superbs I think I am qualified to answer this, in order of buying them:

 

2004 MK1 Comfort (1.9 PD 130)

2010 MK2 Elegance estate (2.0 170 CR mapped to 200) bought new.

2005 MK1 Edition 100 (1.9 PD 130 mapped to 170 ish)

2015 MK3 L&K 190 DSG, bought new.

 

I have always had a soft spot for the MK1 despite it’s issues (water ingress mainly) my MK2 Elegance however was a far better car (even compared to the Edition 100 which was very similar in term of spec)

The seats in the MK1 need electric adjustment if you have back issues, so look for an Edition 100 or Elegance,.

The xenon’s are OK but nothing special (MK2 far better)

Quieter engine in the MK2 although it doesn’t feel as quick, a glance down at the speedo confirms it’s no slouch

Better suspension on the MK2, I fitted Bilsteins on the Edition 100, which helped a bit.

Sat nav / radio in the MK1 is pretty pants, the Columbus in the MK2 is far superior.

The MK2 (hatch) is a fugly beast IMO though, hence why I bought the estate, these didn’t come out until 2010 so may be out of your budget?

The MK1 is more economical to run (fuel wise)

 

One thing that does help is buying new though as you get the car that you really want rather than what is for sale.

 

Non of them are bad, but if you want a MK1 then buy one before test driving a MK2!

[bigjohn]

On 04/02/2019 at 21:49, bobiwan said:

Thank you for the detailed answer bigjohn . 
I find the first model seats comfortable as well. Doesn`t the second superb has less leg room for the driver? I am searching for the most comfortable and quiet of the both. Of course if the maintenance costs of the superb 2 are >> costs of superb 1, i will be heading towards it.  As for the headlights, doesn`t the elegance model has a xenon headlight option?  

 

Re Front leg room - I'd say both have loads of legroom, infact on my mkII I have to pull the seat forward a bit, usually unheard of for me (hence bigjohn - I'm 6ft 4" and large)

 

It does vary between models but my mkII is very quiet indeed but my petrol engine, S model high profile tyres and Michelin Crossclimates rather contributue to this. Until above 60mph you can't hear anything from the engine whilst cruising (4th and 6th gear sound the same! and the only thing you hear at tickover is the interior fan). Can't really compare economy as my mkI was a diesel but my mk II is a petrol however on the same journey types my mkI 1.9pd 100 did about 50mpg (somehow however it was driven!) and my mkII 1.4tsi averages over 45mpg (although somewhat sensitive to load).

 

Don't get me wrong I really loved my mkI and if it was possible to buy another new one I probably would but they are all getting on a bit now and water leaks, suspension problems and rust can leave them a bit needy. Saying that I still know mine even under new ownership and it has never leaked (although it had a full climate control removal during original warranty due to a servo issue - would have been re-sealed at that point) and it still has its original battery, exhaust and clutch. However thus far my mkII has been faultless and I find it an amazingly refined mile muncher.

 

I'd say if you find a really good condition mkI then go for it and preserve it - condition is all. Don't get the 2.0 diesel though.

 

Edited 5 February, 2019 by bigjohn

[bobiwan]

Thank you guys! You are gold with such exhaustive answers!

I will surely post the car on the forum when i find the right car(good condition and specs)! 

[bigjohn]

On 05/02/2019 at 23:03, bobiwan said:

I will surely post the car on the forum when i find the right car(good condition and specs)! 

 

Hi, did you find a suitable Superb?

[bobiwan]

Yes, I finally managed to find a suitable Superb(had other things in life meanwhile). Just bought a Edition 100 2.8 V6 with(almost) all extras in a good condition. I think the car is great and provides even more than I thought it would. Just the one thing that bothers me is that the car has sport suspension(adjustable). And the car rides rough. Is there any point in trying to soften this suspension or directly change the shock absorbers with stock ones?

[bobiwan]

Here are some pictures of the car. I am very satisfied with the vehicle, although some people say it is retro - I think this is the right choice for me. Like the build materials, sound proofing and classy style. Also thank you to all of you that actually honestly answered my questions.

[Carlston]

23 hours ago, bobiwan said:

Yes, I finally managed to find a suitable Superb(had other things in life meanwhile). Just bought a Edition 100 2.8 V6 with(almost) all extras in a good condition. I think the car is great and provides even more than I thought it would. Just the one thing that bothers me is that the car has sport suspension(adjustable). And the car rides rough. Is there any point in trying to soften this suspension or directly change the shock absorbers with stock ones?

 

It looks like you have 17" tyres, either 205/50R17 or 225/45R17. First check you tyre pressure aren't too hard. This has a big effect on ride comfort and doesn't cost anything. The recommended tyre pressures should be inside the fuel cap. There may be two tyre pressure recommendations for your tyre size. One recommendation will be for a lightly loaded car, and another recommendation will be for a heavily load car. Use the lower tyre pressures if you don't normally carry rear passengers and/or a heavy load.

 

Changing to 205/55R16 tyres on 6Jx16 ET40 rims will make the ride noticeably softer. This is due to the higher and more flexible sidewalls. Although you have a powerful 2.8 version, Skoda didn't fit anything bigger than 312mm diameter front brake discs to the Superb MK1. This means that 16" wheels will fit any Superb MK1.

 

You can check this using a Skoda online parts catalogue.

 

http://www.oemepc.com/skoda/parts_lst/markt/CZ/modell/SUP/year/2007/hg/6/catalog/sk/drive_standart/265/lang/e

 

It's also quite easy to measure the diameter of the front brake discs. You don't need to measure exactly, as there's only two diameters fitted to the Superb MK1...288mm and 312mm.

 

The combination of sports suspension and low profile tyres is probably what's causing your hard ride.

 

Another benefit to changing to 205/55R16 tyres, is that this is a common and cheap size.

 

Here are 6Jx16 ET40 steel rims that are made for the Superb MK1

 

https://www.oponeo.co.uk/steel-wheel/alcar-kfz-9490#21067219

 

You may also find that 7Jx16 ET37 steel rims are available for the Superb MK1, but avoid these as these are quite wide for a 205/55 tyre and will therefore stretch the tyre sidewalls which makes the ride harder. The narrower 6J rims will give a noticeably better ride than the wider 7J rims when fitted with 205/55 tyres.

Edited 9 June, 2020 by Carlston

[bobiwan]

Yes, you are right - they are 225/45 and are even run flat. I will buy new 17" that are not run flat and have more height. Also I will adjust the suspension to be as softer and higher as it could be. the car has 16" with winter tyres also. Will see how ride quality changes. If the two procedures that I will perform won`t satisfy me with the ride quality, I will change the sport dampers and coils. Do you think that`s reasonable?  

[gfinneran]

B6 Bilsteins are the way to go but as Nackuk above they are a motorway cruiser not a sporty handling drive , as above the correct psi/bar pressures are on the filler flap or in the service manual, I have 225/45/17s on mine same wheels and the ride is good over everything except poor road surfaces.

Read the water ingress thread stickied at the top and sort out the water leaks asap as they all leak and cause a world of hurt in corroded wiring and electrical nightmares.

 

[Carlston]

3 hours ago, bobiwan said:

Yes, you are right - they are 225/45 and are even run flat. I will buy new 17" that are not run flat and have more height. Also I will adjust the suspension to be as softer and higher as it could be. the car has 16" with winter tyres also. Will see how ride quality changes. If the two procedures that I will perform won`t satisfy me with the ride quality, I will change the sport dampers and coils. Do you think that`s reasonable?  

 

Yes, the run flat tyres are harder riding than standard tyres. For the softest ride, it also best to fit tyres without rim protection moulded into the sidewall, non extra load tyres, and not a higher speed index that you need. According to wikipedia, the top speed of the 190HP 2.8 petrol Superb MK1 is 147mph (237km/h) so V speed rated tyres would be adequate.

 

Both Bridgestone Turanza T005 and Continental EcoContact 6 are available in size 225/45R17 with a standard load index (91=615kg), V speed rating, and without rim protection. Some models have rim protection, so check with the seller before purchase if you want the tyres to have no rim protection.

 

Your 17" alloy rims are shown in this online parts catalogue.

 

http://www.oemepc.com/skoda/part_single/catalog/sk/markt/CZ/modell/SUP/year/2007/drive_standart/265/hg_ug/601/subcategory/601055/part_id/2543668/lang/e

 

They are 7Jx17 ET37 specification, which is the minimum width to mount a 245/45 tyre. One of the benefits that you get by fitting a tyre to a minimum width rim is increased rim protection from kerbing damage as the tyre sidewalls will bulge out more compared to fitting them to a wider rim. Also, fitting a 245/45 tyre to the 7J minimum width rim will give maximum comfort from that tyre size. The VW group sometimes fits 245/45 tyres to 7.5J rims, but the ride will be a little harder compared to fitting the same size tyre to the narrower 7J rim.

 

Some owners of Superb MK1 or MK2 have fitted 245/50R17 tyres instead of the standard 245/45R17 tyres. The load index of a standard 245/50R17 tyre is 94 (670kg), so by changing to this size instead of 225/45R17 you can reduce your tyre pressures by about 3 psi (0.2 Bar). A 3 psi (0.2 Bar) reduction is easily noticeably in improved ride comfort. One of the downsides to fitting the higher sidewalled 225/50R17 tyre instead of the standard 225/45R17 is that it raises the gearing which depending on your current gearing could be a disadvantage...especially if feel that the new higher gearing is then too high. Another downside is that 225/50R17 tyres are considerably more expensive than the more common 225/45R17 size.

 

My own preference would be to stick with standard sized 225/45R17 tyres on the Superb MK1 190HP 2.8 petrol, with a standard load index (ie. not XL, eXtra Load), V speed rated, and without rim protection (rim protection is extra rubber moulded into the sidewalls to help protect the rims from kerbing damage.

 

The next improvement is then standard coil springs and dampers.

Edited 9 June, 2020 by Carlston

[bobiwan]

Thank you, for your exhaustive answers. I took a deeper look at my tires. It turns out that they are not runflats(I guess it is an option for Dunlop SportMaxx RT2, not every set of tires has this), but they have rim protection, higher speed index and extra load(I wonder if changing tires in that case will change a lot anyway and tires are extra money, if I am going to spend it is better to be worth it). And yes - 225/45R17 is the size to go.

P.S. I am aware of the water ingress problem

[bobiwan]

I changed the sport suspension with normal, aftermarket one. now the drive comfort has increased significantly, but compared to other Superbs the car is still somewhat lower. As I see the "normal" distance between the tyre and the fender is around 4 fingers(even with 17 inch wheels), but on mine it`s like almost the half. Any ideas on this?