Coming up on 3 years since I've had my L&K.  Love it but I'm starting to get itchy feet.

The Sportline does appeal but I'd like to hear the thoughts of folks on here as to what the big differences would be.

 

Advantages and disadvantages of each

The choice between L&K and Sportline really comes down to personal preference as the differences aren't huge.

 

I went for L&K as I preferred the interior, the Sportline seats are very good and comfortable but I preferred the leather (especially as they're ventilated).

 

You also get a little bit more kit as standard on the L&K, although Sportline Plus does add a few of these to be fair.

 

On the road the lower Sportline might corner slightly better, the L&K might be a touch smoother over bumps, but in every day driving I doubt you'd really notice much difference.

 

I wouldn't have been disappointed with a Sportline just the L&K was more to my taste.

 

 

Edited 12 September, 20196 yr by AidanF

I also have a L&K TDI190 (in 4x4 version). To me, the choice between L&K or sportline is very subjective. It up to you and what your looking for (comfort or sportsmanship ?)...

 

The big difference is the engine, of course.

I had a 6 year old Superb MK2 TDI140, when I switching to a MK3. TDI190 seemed to me obvious. I thought that +35% HP combined wit h DSG6 would be significantly enough to get rid quite easily of some silly drivers, who are really interested to see what you have in the boot. But many recent car have also increased their HP in the mean time...

I tried to intercept a TSI280 on the assembly line, when I ordered, but unfortunately, the only MK3 matching with all my other specs had a TDI190 engine. I decided to sign the PO though.

~18 months and ~33000 km later, I wish I had bought a TSI280 engine... Next one I hope! (Note: a TSI 272 will be fine too 😂)...

Thanks for the replies guys.

 

 

This comparison is going to be personal preference

 

L&K is comfort and luxury whilst subtle in image vs Sportline which is (non-standard) looks as first priority, and equipment fitted second

 

 

 

 

Just one point regarding comfort vs sportiness: I've had my 272 for 7 months now, Sportline loaded with practically every extra possible (electric seats, DCC, virtual cockpit etc. etc. etc) minus the sun-roof and I'd say it still clearly feels more like a limo than a sports car. What I mean is don't even think for a second that a Sportline will compromise your "daily-ness" in either comfort, luxury or practicality, not in the slightest. The seats are super comfortable while also providing a bit of lateral support, car rides as if on pillows in Comfort but also tightens up nicely in Sport so you can more confidently use this great engine's potential, and in general, apart from parking in the city, it's a much easier car to daily than even any supermini out there.

I'd say it's down to which looks you prefer and what sort of performance you're after.

L&K goes for a more conservative-classy trim, Sportline is more dynamic and aggressive.
TDI is more economical and adequate for all daily duties but I wouldn't exactly call it fast. The 272 TSI will give you some good laughs (esp. at lower, daily speeds) and lots of other cars some trouble, and also has lots of extra power that can be unlocked very easily down the road.

Imo, L&K TDI vs Sportline TSI are quite different cars so the decision for either of them should be rather straightforward based on your priorities.
 

Edited 13 September, 20196 yr by newbie69

25 minutes ago, newbie69 said:

Just one point regarding comfort vs sportiness: I've had my 272 for 7 months now, Sportline loaded with practically every extra possible (electric seats, DCC, virtual cockpit etc. etc. etc) minus the sun-roof and I'd say it still clearly feels more like a limo than a sports car. What I mean is don't even think for a second that a Sportline will compromise your "daily-ness" in either comfort, luxury or practicality, not in the slightest. The seats are super comfortable while also providing a bit of lateral support, car rides as if on pillows in Comfort but also tightens up nicely in Sport so you can more confidently use this great engine's potential, and in general, apart from parking in the city, it's a much easier car to daily than even any supermini out there.

I'd say it's down to which looks you prefer and what sort of performance you're after.

L&K goes for a more conservative-classy trim, Sportline is more dynamic and aggressive.
TDI is more economical and adequate for all daily duties but I wouldn't exactly call it fast. The 272 TSI will give you some good laughs (esp. at lower, daily speeds) and lots of other cars some trouble, and also has lots of extra power that can be unlocked very easily down the road.

Imo, L&K TDI vs Sportline TSI are quite different cars so the decision for either of them should be rather straightforward based on your priorities.
 

 

Thanks for your reply newbie.

What is your real world average mpg?

Fwiw I’m getting 36mpg from my 280 over last 10K. 

Just now, Mickey43 said:

 

Thanks for your reply newbie.

What is your real world average mpg?

Last 4000kms is 29mpg which is surprisingly good considering my 90% of miles is my 2x 8km commute where engine is practically still in warm-up phase (oil barely rises above 70-75C before I turn off).

As a more representative figure, on my Berlin road trip at a fixed 120-130km/h I was seeing 35-37mpg, which dropped to around 32mpg after a few runs to 250km/h on the unrestricted bits of Autobahn. Funnily, it's slightly more economical than the Golf GTI I had before with the same engine (and considerably less weight). Driving my commute mostly in ECO mode where the car coasts whenever you lift off coupled with the very long 7th gear of the new 7-speed DSG contributes a lot to those figures I believe.

If 5.5s from 0 to 100 km/h / 62 mph (TSI272) is not sufficient to define properly a sport car, many so-called sport cars are still waaaay behind.

At least a perfect sleeper that can effectively give troubles to some other cars, because many drivers stil think of Skoda as cars from old Eastern Europe.

 

By the way, here is a current Skoda advertisement on french TV. It reveals how tenacious a priori may be .

 

 

It finally says : You were ugly too in the 90's... 😂

On 10/09/2019 at 10:52, Mickey43 said:

Coming up on 3 years since I've had my L&K.  Love it but I'm starting to get itchy feet.

The Sportline does appeal but I'd like to hear the thoughts of folks on here as to what the big differences would be.

 

Advantages and disadvantages of each

Controversial comment alert. If I were looking for a 280PS car that wasn't L&K I would be looking outside the Skoda brand. For the reasons the guys above have mentioned. I've not driven the Sportline, so can't give any personal insight, but I expect the difference from your 190 (or mine) will be so subtle as to be unnoticeable within a week - excepting the engine power obviously.

 

If you want a change, I'd advise checking out the 280PS cars from all relevant manufacturers, then driving them back to back. 

 

Then buy another L&K.

Edited 13 September, 20196 yr by BriskodaJeff

10 hours ago, BriskodaJeff said:

Controversial comment alert. If I were looking for a 280PS car that wasn't L&K I would be looking outside the Skoda brand. For the reasons the guys above have mentioned. I've not driven the Sportline, so can't give any personal insight, but I expect the difference from your 190 (or mine) will be so subtle as to be unnoticeable within a week - excepting the engine power obviously.

 

If you want a change, I'd advise checking out the 280PS cars from all relevant manufacturers, then driving them back to back. 

 

Then buy another L&K.

I think you might have mis-interpreted my comment regarding sportiness completely Jeff!  When I said that even the Sportline feels more like a limo than a sports car I meant it in a good way. So that no-one contemplating between a L&K and Sportline to think that because of the version it's either a firm ride, or lacking any luxuries or compromising any of the daily-ness of the car at all. I tend to associate sports cars with a number of compromises hence the comparison.

Coming to the actual "sports car" feeling in terms of driving it's true the car feels not like one. It surely is quick and effective, I had commented in the past how much grip the car finds around corners (more than you can sensibly break on a public road) and how capable (and completely unassuming) a point-to-point machine it is but that's different to say an MX-5 that is far from fast or effective, but is probably the original definition of a sports car.

Then again, no big family sedan/limo in this class is either so it's rather irrelevant, and it's not something that I would imagine is in the top priorities of anyone in search of such a car.

Edited 14 September, 20196 yr by newbie69

Thanks @newbie69, I understood your post and it makes sense. It's actually in line with my thoughts. The point I was making is that if someone wants a change from the L&K, the Sportline might not be enough of a change to satisfy them, even with the extra power. So it would be worth seeing what else is out there. 

11 hours ago, Bap33 said:

If 5.5s from 0 to 100 km/h / 62 mph (TSI272) is not sufficient to define properly a sport car, many so-called sport cars are still waaaay behind.

At least a perfect sleeper that can effectively give troubles to some other cars, because many drivers stil think of Skoda as cars from old Eastern Europe.

 

By the way, here is a current Skoda advertisement on french TV. It reveals how tenacious a priori may be .

 

 

It finally says : You were ugly too in the 90's... 😂

 

I had a laugh yesterday... I took little Miss H out for a blast down the local bypass. All windows down and her music on. Overtaking cars with cruise set to 70. Lights appear behind at a reasonable distance and hold back.

 

I give the motor a quick squirt to get by the cars quickly so I’m not holding motor up behind who wants to make more progress than me.

 

Now planting the throttle at 70 produces a decent amount of acceleration and usually introduces a decent gap between me and the car behind before I pull in to let them past.

 

Not on this occasion... There is a huge noise and car behind has gone past like I’m standing still.

 

RS6  Puts our 280/272’s into perspective !

 

 

15 hours ago, Bap33 said:

 

If 5.5s from 0 to 100 km/h / 62 mph (TSI272) is not sufficient to define properly a sport car, many so-called sport cars are still waaaay behind.

 

What a laughable comment. The 200kW Superb is far from a proper sport sedan. It’s more than adequate but it’s obviosuly not on the level of an Mercedes-AMG C43 or a BMW M340i. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Nick_H said:

RS6  Puts our 280/272’s into perspective !

 

I'd probably take 2*280  and pocket the change for beer cheers🍻

2 hours ago, ZacDaMan72 said:

What a laughable comment. The 200kW Superb is far from a proper sport sedan. It’s more than adequate but it’s obviosuly not on the level of an Mercedes-AMG C43 or a BMW M340i. 

 

 

Actually, I wanted to point out too that the 0-100 time of or any other performance figure alone does not make a sports car, it merely hints to its performance class, that's different. That been said, none of the cars you mention are "proper" sport sedans either. They are more capable, performance variants of the C Class and 3 series families but they are surely not topping the sedan class in terms of feed-back or driving characteristics. The M3 CS and C63s are both better driver's cars than a C43 or 340i but they are obviously irrelevant here.

Also, performance wise, while a C43 or a 340i are faster than a 272/280 Superb stock for stock, they are definitely not that far ahead as one might think, when a casual ECU remap (not a single screw altered) will see the Superb better their times (case of 335/340i) or be almost on par with them (case of C43 381ps).
 

I was going to touch on acceleration figures not making a car a sports car, but the sort of person to believe such fallacy won’t change their mind anytime soon. 

 

My Golf R is Stage 1 and when I drove the C43 it felt just as fast somehow - didn’t have a VBOX but it must be a low 4 second 0-100 instead of 4.8. The Mercedes and BMW also handle far better than the Superb and feel more balanced due to the rear biased AWD systems. Again, 0-100 isn’t everything - you’ll never get a Golf R or Superb sounding as amazing as the C43’s V6. Had a grin on my face the whole time while driving it. 

 

I referred to the C43 and M340i as the C63 S and M3 (especially the CS you mentioned) are definitely not as comfortable a daily as their respective stablemate. In inclement weather they are just as quick and realistically would hustle down a twisty B road just as well cause they put the power down better. Also no AWD = no go for me as I take both my cars to the snow. 

 

I would say that the C43/M340i are sport sedans with the C63/M3 being a performance sport sedan. 

Edited 14 September, 20196 yr by ZacDaMan72

22 hours ago, Bap33 said:

If 5.5s from 0 to 100 km/h / 62 mph (TSI272) is not sufficient to define properly a sport car, many so-called sport cars are still waaaay behind.

At least a perfect sleeper that can effectively give troubles to some other cars, because many drivers stil think of Skoda as cars from old Eastern Europe.

[...]

 

7 hours ago, ZacDaMan72 said:

What a laughable comment. The 200kW Superb is far from a proper sport sedan. It’s more than adequate but it’s obviosuly not on the level of an Mercedes-AMG C43 or a BMW M340i. 

 

 

 

What a laughable comment... You forget Audi R8, Ferrari F488 or even Porsche 911 GT2... Sorry, just teasing you...  

Please read carefully my original message above (bold words) and don't make me say, what I didn't write.  

I also give it to you, my english may be not good enough... 🤔 I'm not a native english speaker...

 

Of course 0-100 time doesn't make a sport car on its own! And the Superb Mk3 (even with 280 HP) is NOT a sport car.

When I spoke about 'So-called' sports car, I was only thinking to more reasonable cars such as Renault Mégane RS / Peugeot 308 (2) GTI / Golf GTI...

You're right on one point... I didn't specified what 'so-called' sport cars are (to me). Thus, to be less subjective, here are some figures...

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/match6528-7179-5852-4366-6713-4365.htm

 

Another interesting comparison :

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel6528-7360.htm

 

And final comparison, with the car you mentionned... But they obvioulsy don't play in the same category...

http://www.zeperfs.com/en/match6528-6217-6449.htm

 

 

 

Edited 14 September, 20196 yr by Bap33

1 hour ago, ZacDaMan72 said:

I was going to touch on acceleration figures not making a car a sports car, but the sort of person to believe such fallacy won’t change their mind anytime soon. 

 

My Golf R is Stage 1 and when I drove the C43 it felt just as fast somehow - didn’t have a VBOX but it must be a low 4 second 0-100 instead of 4.8. The Mercedes and BMW also handle far better than the Superb and feel more balanced due to the rear biased AWD systems. Again, 0-100 isn’t everything - you’ll never get a Golf R or Superb sounding as amazing as the C43’s V6. Had a grin on my face the whole time while driving it. 

 

I referred to the C43 and M340i as the C63 S and M3 (especially the CS you mentioned) are definitely not as comfortable a daily as their respective stablemate. In inclement weather they are just as quick and realistically would hustle down a twisty B road just as well cause they put the power down better. Also no AWD = no go for me as I take both my cars to the snow. 

 

I would say that the C43/M340i are sport sedans with the C63/M3 being a performance sport sedan. 

Well I personally agree with you but I can understand people with more light/broad definitions of a "sports car" than myself, calling as such any vehicle with decent performance figures. That's not what makes a sports car in my book (and I believe in many others') but I wouldn't lose my sleep over it so to speak if they'd rather stick to their opinions...

Your stage 1 R felt as fast as a stock C43 because it probably is, several timed accelerations of tuned R's and C43 that prove this. And that's the beauty of our cars (with these engines). They're doing ok as stock but the amount of potential and how easy it is to unlock it is silly.

But still for me, the "problem" of a C43 or M340i (or any variant that wears a semi-AMG/M/RS badge) is that they are somewhere in the middle. I see them as plan-B's if you can't afford the real class toppers and one of the reasons I decided against a 335i a few year's back. I knew I'd be happy to own one but I also knew I'd be still wishing on getting in something like an M3 or an RS4 right after I'd have bought it. Just the way I see it maybe but still.

 
Now that I think about it, a C43 or M340i are probably irrelevant to a 272 Sportline anyway as they are  smaller cars (the rear of the 3-series in particular was shocking, marginally more room than a Golf GTI). It's the 530i/540i and E300/E400 we should be comparing it against and I think we'd agree none of those cars are exactly regarded as sports cars neither are they at a different performance class (in fact both the 530i and E300 are significantly slower), so I think it does rather well for its target group.
 

5 hours ago, Bap33 said:

When I spoke about 'So-called' sports car, I was only thinking to more reasonable cars such as Renault Mégane RS / Peugeot 308 (2) GTI / Golf GTI...

So what most people call warm/hot hatches? You're right that a 272/280 Superb would give a hot hatch owner a surprise. That said a warm hatch is far from being an actual sports car.

 

3 hours ago, newbie69 said:

Your stage 1 R felt as fast as a stock C43 because it probably is, several timed accelerations of tuned R's and C43 that prove this. And that's the beauty of our cars (with these engines). They're doing ok as stock but the amount of potential and how easy it is to unlock it is silly.

I was surprised for the opposite reason. The C43 is far quicker to 100 than what the spec sheet says. My Golf does a 4.2 0-100 and the C43 did the same somehow.

 

3 hours ago, newbie69 said:

I see them as plan-B's if you can't afford the real class toppers and one of the reasons I decided against a 335i a few year's back

I've been told by the guys at Mercedes that many people have wanted C63's with AWD so have ended up getting GLC 63 and C43's. And I know many people that have ended up getting alternatives to RWD performance cars. I can afford an RS4 but far out the DRC suspension which is standard in NZ is absolutely terrible. Far too stiff in "auto" and dynamic, but too floaty in comfort. Can't get an M3 in wagon or AWD, and no C63 in AWD...where am I supposed to go??

 

Size wise I really don't care that much. Just need a big boot and reasonable interior space, which the C43 offers. It's really not a poor mans C63, more like a poor mans E63.

 

 

please delete this, moderators

Edited 15 September, 20196 yr by ZacDaMan72
double post

6 hours ago, ZacDaMan72 said:

So what most people call warm/hot hatches? You're right that a 272/280 Superb would give a hot hatch owner a surprise. That said a warm hatch is far from being an actual sports car.

 

I was surprised for the opposite reason. The C43 is far quicker to 100 than what the spec sheet says. My Golf does a 4.2 0-100 and the C43 did the same somehow.

 

I've been told by the guys at Mercedes that many people have wanted C63's with AWD so have ended up getting GLC 63 and C43's. And I know many people that have ended up getting alternatives to RWD performance cars. I can afford an RS4 but far out the DRC suspension which is standard in NZ is absolutely terrible. Far too stiff in "auto" and dynamic, but too floaty in comfort. Can't get an M3 in wagon or AWD, and no C63 in AWD...where am I supposed to go??

 

Size wise I really don't care that much. Just need a big boot and reasonable interior space, which the C43 offers. It's really not a poor mans C63, more like a poor mans E63.

 

 

Well, now you got me confused. I think we were agreeing a sports car is defined by other characteristics than acceleration figures. If that's still the case, a top FWD hot-hatch these days (think GTI Clubsport, Civic Type-R, 308 GTI) is definitely a sportier drive than any of the AWD wagons you mention that flirt with 2-ton weight figures. Doesn't matter if the C43 hits 0-100 in 4.2, Tesla does it in even less and is definitely not what I would call sporty. Those hatches are more direct, more agile, easier to place, give better steering feel and bags of grip (not traction) on a dry road. A C43 would be more efficient in that it will put on the same performance in dry or wet but it definitely can't be thrown around as mercilessly or with as much reward as those cars. And that's not its aim anyway. Which is also why you won't see a C43 in a track-day too often. You will see plenty of hot-hatches, M3s and 911s though.

No objection on the second part of your post. For a strong all-round all-year performer with daily duties you need at least a mid-size sedan/estate with 300bhp and AWD. That has an adverse effect on handling and weight (replacing rwd with awd) but with tricky diffs, electronics and more power you can remedy most of it , at least to an extent that satisfies the average buyer of those cars that wants effortless, guaranteed performance in exchange for the ultimate feel and the risks/compromises that come with it. Funnily, a C43 is faster up to a certain speed than the range topper C63 which says a lot. Merc and BMW have been sticking to rwd for the M5 and E63 but we all know what drive their current supersaloons feature. I guess Audi wasn't such a fool all that time with their S/RS models...

21 minutes ago, newbie69 said:

Well, now you got me confused. I think we were agreeing a sports car is defined by other characteristics than acceleration figures. If that's still the case, a top FWD hot-hatch these days (think GTI Clubsport, Civic Type-R, 308 GTI) is definitely a sportier drive than any of the AWD wagons you mention that flirt with 2-ton weight figures.

I assumed that OP was referring to your bog standard GTI, not a clapped out version (a la Clubsport/TCR). In stock form, the 220/230hp GTI is kinda boring if you ask me, the Octy RS 245 was better with the e-diff though. Maybe I'm too used to my R. I'm sure a GTI Clubsport/TCR or Type R would easily beat the wagons we're talking about on a track, but for a daily sports car I would much rather the C43. I had more fun in the C43 than any GTI or Octy RS I've driven. Maybe I need to go drive a GTI again.

 

31 minutes ago, newbie69 said:

Funnily, a C43 is faster up to a certain speed than the range topper C63 which says a lot.

This is why they're so popular. The power is more accessible, and you can ring the engine out more. Sounds better too if you ask me...

Some good and fair comparisons here with a £35-40k better than average family car, with a 2ltr 4 pot Vs some of the most well regarded super saloons on the planet which cost 40-50% more. 

 

Great stuff 👍🏻