Sometimes the public perception is changed by different levels of expectation - naturally Audi owners expect more from their vehicles than Skoda owners, after all they've spent more money.
JD Power surveys show the same distortion with cheaper brands often appearing to outperform expensive brands - when the reality is that owners of cheap brands expect less so more likely to be satisfied.
Agreed.
When the cheapest Audi A6 Avant 2.0TDi is a whisker under £34k, and the cheapest Skoda Superb estate with the same engine is £21.6k, you can understand why Audi owners are a lot more demanding, and a lot more willing to complain and badly rate their cars if common problems (DSG boxes, excessive oil use in certain engines, etc) occur.
About 10 to 15 years ago ago, Skodas were high-quality (traditional Audi, so to speak) engineering with a cheap badge on the front. It's sort-of flipped around now, Audis are more like poor-quality engineering (traditional Skoda) with an expensive badge on the front.
As to the question as to which is the best in terms of quality ... possibly Merc - and I say that as a BMW owner. Mercedes have improved greatly since the 1998-2005 era, when the accountants really cut into quality to increase profits. BMW, in that time, haven't really moved on much. Yes, they've had issues with timing chains primarily, but their engineering is still pretty much the same as it was in 2003, but with a few eco-bits bolted on.
In another way, that's no bad thing. VAG used the basic 1.9TDi engine from the 1980's through to 2010, but with improved turbochargers, etc.
|
Sometimes the public perception is changed by different levels of expectation - naturally Audi owners expect more from their vehicles than Skoda owners, after all they've spent more money.
JD Power surveys show the same distortion with cheaper brands often appearing to outperform expensive brands - when the reality is that owners of cheap brands expect less so more likely to be satisfied.
Agreed.
When the cheapest Audi A6 Avant 2.0TDi is a whisker under £34k, and the cheapest Skoda Superb estate with the same engine is £21.6k, you can understand why Audi owners are a lot more demanding, and a lot more willing to complain and badly rate their cars if common problems (DSG boxes, excessive oil use in certain engines, etc) occur.
About 10 to 15 years ago ago, Skodas were high-quality (traditional Audi, so to speak) engineering with a cheap badge on the front. It's sort-of flipped around now, Audis are more like poor-quality engineering (traditional Skoda) with an expensive badge on the front.
As to the question as to which is the best in terms of quality ... possibly Merc - and I say that as a BMW owner. Mercedes have improved greatly since the 1998-2005 era, when the accountants really cut into quality to increase profits. BMW, in that time, haven't really moved on much. Yes, they've had issues with timing chains primarily, but their engineering is still pretty much the same as it was in 2003, but with a few eco-bits bolted on.
In another way, that's no bad thing. VAG used the basic 1.9TDi engine from the 1980's through to 2010, but with improved turbochargers, etc.
I think there is a problem on the cards for the VAG group. As Skoda moves up the price band as demonstrated by the latest Octavia which a taxi driver who had had 2 previous Octavias considered it 'to expensive', VAG will lose their budget brand and Skoda will inevitably eat into VW and Seat sales. The middle of the market is crowded, they need to return Skoda back to budget as premium is not on the csrds
The same taxi driver was in a Skoda Rapid, so in one sense the Rapid hits the pricing band some or most Skoda customers shop at.
However, with the Roomster set to be replaced, the new Fabia with a higher list price than all of its budget rivals, the Yeti still priced highly, Octavia over priced, it remains to be seen if Skoda will lose its value and bargain reputation.
Being cheaper than the equivalent VW is one thing, but being cheaper or offering better value for money than a rival manufacturer offerings is what gets Skoda sales.
|
|
Yup. Skoda, if it is still supposed to be a 'bargain' brand of VAG, should be priced equivalent to Kia/Hyundai - the only problem for them then is that those 2 offer incredibly lengthy warranties compared to VAG. In the meantime, they've been happy to rip customers off with the 'perceived' value of having VW/Audi underpinnings in a car with a considerable price reduction.
I'm not sure where SEAT sits in VAG's structure though ? A 'fun' brand for the early 20's, until you get responsibilities/kids and upgrade to a VW ? Does that make Skoda the retiree's version of Audi ?
|
Yup. Skoda, if it is still supposed to be a 'bargain' brand of VAG, should be priced equivalent to Kia/Hyundai - the only problem for them then is that those 2 offer incredibly lengthy warranties compared to VAG. In the meantime, they've been happy to rip customers off with the 'perceived' value of having VW/Audi underpinnings in a car with a considerable price reduction.
I'm not sure where SEAT sits in VAG's structure though ? A 'fun' brand for the early 20's, until you get responsibilities/kids and upgrade to a VW ? Does that make Skoda the retiree's version of Audi ?
Thing is that Hyundai/Kia never wanted to stay a budget brand building budget cars for ever - they're now firmly established in the mainstream and charge mainstream prices - much to the consternation of existing Hyundai/Kia owners who are faced with big price hikes to replace their cars.
Skoda and Seat are in similar positions, they want to be mainstream cars at mainstream prices - I guess VAG are happy with that as it pushes VW and Audi further upmarket, at least in the public's minds.
Edited by RT on 30/11/2014 at 19:59
|
|
Not sure, I'll soon be in the market for a 4wd estate and a Skoda Octavia Elegance, load of kit, is miles cheaper than a Passat Alltrack, Audi A6 Allroad (not an A4, too small) or Insignia, Subaru Outback or BMW x series.
|
Not sure, I'll soon be in the market for a 4wd estate and a Skoda Octavia Elegance, load of kit, is miles cheaper than a Passat Alltrack, Audi A6 Allroad (not an A4, too small) or Insignia, Subaru Outback or BMW x series.
You do need to look at the long picture, and factor in residual value - that may not change the order but it needs considering, not just looking at initial price.
|
|
People will still buy Audis because of residuals and perceived quality (without getting into the argument as to whether that's real or not). I think it's the VW brand that's most threatened by Skoda, and I'm sure I read somewhere that the CEO, Martin Winterkorn, said that it's important to differentiate the brands.
The Skoda Rapid seems to be the result of that thinking - it looks as if it's been built down to a price, although I don't know how deep within the car's construction that price-cutting goes. Fortunately the Octavia hasn't so far gone the same way, and my Mark 3 is if anything even better finished than the Mark 2.
It makes me wonder about the need for the Passat - but apparently it's sold 22 million since the first one was introduced in the 1970s. Presumably it's sold best in markets where the Octavia isn't, e.g, China and the USA. (At least I don't think Skodas are sold there - someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
|
|
AFAIK, the car built in the USA and badged VW Passat is more like a federalised Skoda Superb than a European Passat - Skoda isn't sold in the USA.
|
|
|
|
Not sure, I'll soon be in the market for a 4wd estate and a Skoda Octavia Elegance, load of kit, is miles cheaper than a Passat Alltrack, Audi A6 Allroad (not an A4, too small) or Insignia, Subaru Outback or BMW x series.
You do need to look at the long picture, and factor in residual value - that may not change the order but it needs considering, not just looking at initial price.
I do need to look at the higher purchase price of an Audi or VW and its effect on BIK or personal lease/HP. It's likely to be a company car so it will cost me far less less to have an Octavia than a Passat or A6 Allroad or X3 on BIK. If I was buying it myself and I still might I'll get £4.1k off list which makes it massively cheaper than competitive cars and the cost of some finance will be much less and come hand back time I'll probably buy it myself and keep it. I work with colleagues who wouldn't dream of a a Skoda but have and do jump at the Stuttgart and Munich badges and gladly pay the extra in their salary decuctions for the privilege. Vive la difference or whatever that is in German!
|
|
|
|
|
Surely you don't buy an insignia at the list price, you should comfortably get a big discount.
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes the public perception is changed by different levels of expectation - naturally Audi owners expect more from their vehicles than Skoda owners, after all they've spent more money.
JD Power surveys show the same distortion with cheaper brands often appearing to outperform expensive brands - when the reality is that owners of cheap brands expect less so more likely to be satisfied.
Agreed.
When the cheapest Audi A6 Avant 2.0TDi is a whisker under £34k, and the cheapest Skoda Superb estate with the same engine is £21.6k, you can understand why Audi owners are a lot more demanding, and a lot more willing to complain and badly rate their cars if common problems (DSG boxes, excessive oil use in certain engines, etc) occur.
About 10 to 15 years ago ago, Skodas were high-quality (traditional Audi, so to speak) engineering with a cheap badge on the front. It's sort-of flipped around now, Audis are more like poor-quality engineering (traditional Skoda) with an expensive badge on the front.
As to the question as to which is the best in terms of quality ... possibly Merc - and I say that as a BMW owner. Mercedes have improved greatly since the 1998-2005 era, when the accountants really cut into quality to increase profits. BMW, in that time, haven't really moved on much. Yes, they've had issues with timing chains primarily, but their engineering is still pretty much the same as it was in 2003, but with a few eco-bits bolted on.
In another way, that's no bad thing. VAG used the basic 1.9TDi engine from the 1980's through to 2010, but with improved turbochargers, etc.
Interesting thoughts. Although I like the styling of the new mercs, my mates new c class has needed new injectors twice in the 2.5 years he's had it. Mercedes are even using Renault/Nissan diesels in the A class!
|
|
|
Sometimes the public perception is changed by different levels of expectation - naturally Audi owners expect more from their vehicles than Skoda owners, after all they've spent more money.
JD Power surveys show the same distortion with cheaper brands often appearing to outperform expensive brands - when the reality is that owners of cheap brands expect less so more likely to be satisfied.
Agreed.
When the cheapest Audi A6 Avant 2.0TDi is a whisker under £34k, and the cheapest Skoda Superb estate with the same engine is £21.6k, you can understand why Audi owners are a lot more demanding, and a lot more willing to complain and badly rate their cars if common problems (DSG boxes, excessive oil use in certain engines, etc) occur.
About 10 to 15 years ago ago, Skodas were high-quality (traditional Audi, so to speak) engineering with a cheap badge on the front. It's sort-of flipped around now, Audis are more like poor-quality engineering (traditional Skoda) with an expensive badge on the front.
As to the question as to which is the best in terms of quality ... possibly Merc - and I say that as a BMW owner. Mercedes have improved greatly since the 1998-2005 era, when the accountants really cut into quality to increase profits. BMW, in that time, haven't really moved on much. Yes, they've had issues with timing chains primarily, but their engineering is still pretty much the same as it was in 2003, but with a few eco-bits bolted on.
In another way, that's no bad thing. VAG used the basic 1.9TDi engine from the 1980's through to 2010, but with improved turbochargers, etc.
My expectations are the same irrespective of brand status.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes the public perception is changed by different levels of expectation - naturally Audi owners expect more from their vehicles than Skoda owners, after all they've spent more money.
A point that's crystallised perfectly in this question from HJ's Telegraph column: www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/...l
Build quality is all relative. Back in the late 80s / early 90s, MB was regarded as the paragon of build quality. But I remember an article from Car Magazine in which an MB engineer described how they'd bought an original Lexus LS400 and dismantled it to see how it was made.
The engineer told the Car journalist that the quality of components, materials and castings etc in the Lexus was FAR superior to anything used by MB at the time.
|
|
How many people are buying new cars these days though?
All of my colleugues are leasing and only interested in the monthly payment and charge for additional miles. Do the makers/dealer inflate the sticker prices to make the monthly payments look like a bargain?
The only people I know who buy new cars are retired and they are complaining about the cost of replacing their cars like for like.
Edited by Hamsafar on 01/12/2014 at 10:05
|
|
For leased cars, the only relevance List Price has is to set the BIK tax - the leasing company doesn't pay the manufacturer/dealer anything like list price, using their buying power to negotiate huge discounts - as much as 50% occasionally.
|
|
|
How many people are buying new cars these days though?
All of my colleugues are leasing and only interested in the monthly payment and charge for additional miles. Do the makers/dealer inflate the sticker prices to make the monthly payments look like a bargain?
The only people I know who buy new cars are retired and they are complaining about the cost of replacing their cars like for like.
I am retired and I buy 1 year old cars. Lots around with under 10k miles and 30% below original SP.
Anyone who is retired and buys a new car need to be taxed more:-)
|
Anyone who is retired and buys a new car need to be taxed more:-)
Only if they've forgotten how to negotiate discounts - with a nearly new car you have to rely on someone else's choice of options.
|
|
|
|
<< I am retired and I buy 1 year old cars. Lots around with under 10k miles and 30% below original SP. >>
How often do you buy your 1-y-o cars, madf? I hope you keep them for several years to save a bit more?
I was lucky to buy my Pug 207SW just before Xmas 2008, when the crunch effect was most noticeable: £5K off r-r-p at 8 months old and 13K miles. It's been even more reliable than I hoped.
|
<< I am retired and I buy 1 year old cars. Lots around with under 10k miles and 30% below original SP. >>
How often do you buy your 1-y-o cars, madf? I hope you keep them for several years to save a bit more?
I was lucky to buy my Pug 207SW just before Xmas 2008, when the crunch effect was most noticeable: £5K off r-r-p at 8 months old and 13K miles. It's been even more reliable than I hoped.
We keep our cars for long periods:
Mini estate : 10 years (2nd owner)
Peugeot 106D 17 years (only new car ever)
Toyota Yaris D4d :11 years. (third owner)
Our Jazz? Two years. Bought at 6 montsh old, with 4 year service plan, lots of extras, 300 miles (one owner who died) and 22% off list price... Travlled 50 miles to Leeds to buy it. (three times)
Easy to find with Autotrader Saved Searches and email.
Edited by madf on 02/12/2014 at 13:53
|
|
|
|
I am retired and I buy 1 year old cars. Lots around with under 10k miles and 30% below original SP.
Of the cars in our household one was bought new, one at 3 months old (demonstrator with 600 miles) and one at 11 months old (part exed by a lady who bought a new car every year, and it only had 4,000 miles!).
In each case we ran the figures for buying new from a broker vs the buy used option. There can be some stunning deals out there which take out all or most of that first year depreciation.
In each case, we were happy to buy new if we had to, but in two of the three cases we were able to significantly undercut the new price (even after broker discounts). In both cases we had to travel - 200 miles for one, 120 miles for the other.
|
|
In the past 15 years we have bought cars form supermarkets, brokers and main dealers. Each time we have looked for the best deal on the car we have decided upon and then go for it. We have had 2 occurences where when presented with evidence of an on-line deal the main dealer has simply lowered his sprice to match but in all honesty the last time I tried it the local dealers simply ignored my request for a better deal.
As for
I'm not sure where SEAT sits in VAG's structure though ? A 'fun' brand for the early 20's, until you get responsibilities/kids and upgrade to a VW ?
I own a Seat, bought it last year, and I am certainly not in my 20's, probably retiring next year. I chose the Leon simply because the VW with the same engine and similar trim was £5000 more expensive.
|
|
Skidpan has a point, Seat and Skoda will surely eat into VW sales.
Why pay 5 grand more for a golf when the Leon is identical in all but badge and looks?
|
|
Up here I've seen a fair few 14 plate Leons, but not many golfs. So I'm sure it will eat into their sales
|
|
|
Skidpan has a point, Seat and Skoda will surely eat into VW sales.
Why pay 5 grand more for a golf when the Leon is identical in all but badge and looks?
They will eat into the sales of the Golf but the money end up in the same place. If they didn't have Seat and Skoda a lot of that money would go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many people are buying new cars these days though?
Both my wife and I do around every 5 years.
|
You can actually buy a 5 year warranty on most VAG cars for £500 - £600, but this is not offered within the price of the car.
I extended the warranty to 5 years on my Seat but its not something the dealer advertised openly, I had to ask, why when they make good profit on these items.
Simple, the warranty you buy before registering the car cost me just under £400 (its £439 now) and covers all the parts covered under the standard warranty with no excess.
The warranty the delaers/manufacturer really want you to buy is the one they sell you when the original one expires. Even the top spec one excludes loads of stuff included in the standard warranty and it still costs £200 a year, so less cover for roughly the same price, well no. There is no excess on the policy you buy when the car is new, on this warranty you choose the excess, if you choose £250 its £200 a year, if you choose £150 or even £0 the price rises.
Which would you buy?
|
|
That's very useful to know Skidpan, thankyou, may i suggest you start a new thread titled appropriately so more visitors here have a better chance of finding this gem out?
Are the dealer/maker really so cynical as to keep schtum about the best extended warranty option for the customer.
|
|
I had the total opposite experience with Dacia.
The dealer only makes 150 of a mid spec Logan MCV so is keen to sell any extras possible including a warranty extension of either 5 or 7 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
