I'm on my second 100/105 but both in smaller cars (Fabia estate and now the Roomie), its a reliable engine, as others have said a bit noisy (gruff rather than rough, though!) but its also an economical little begger though.
I'd have thought that it would be a little underpowered in the Superb though... all the Superbs I've been in (several btw!) have had the 130bhp version which seems to suit it well, plenty of power and still as economical - most of those cars are used by our company from private hire guys and many have done well over 250k miles with no problems... so they are pretty reliable I think!
|
PU wrote: ....I wonder whether there's a marketing strategy here aimed at Taxi drivers ?...
I was in a Skoda garage recently that had a large cardboard display aimed at taxi drivers.
Have to admit it put me off a little bit.
I've nothing against the taxi trade, obviously, but when I'm looking for a new car, I'm in aspirational mode - don't want to be reminded about work, even if it's somebody elses.
On similar lines, I've known people put off Mercs by others who say: "They use them as taxis in Germany."
Back to the topic, there was a time when diesel cars were derided as slow and smelly and fit only for taxi drivers, and farmers with access to duty free fuel.
Would never have thought then that a diesel would become an aspirational purchase.
|
As an owner of a Mk 1 Superb (albeit with the 130 PS diesel engine) I think some are being rather hard on the 105 PS unit.
Before I bought my Superb I test drove all of the diesel options. I quickly ruled out the V6 on the basis of little extra performance over the 130 PS 4 cyl engine and a lot more fuel. The heavy engine degrades the already nose-heavy weight distribution and maintenance costs are high for this rather unreliable engine too.
The two 4 cyl options at the time were 100 and 130 PS both being the 1.9 litre 2 valve unit. I was quite surprised just how usable the 100 PS unit was - unless you really need to press on, the torque of the PD unit makes its work output far more useful than a 100 PS petrol engine would ever be.
In the final analysis, two things persuaded me to go for the 130 PS unit. One was the need to tow a heavy trailer and the other was the availability (as a 2 year old car) of plenty of 130 PS units for which there is practically no fuel penalty. Drive it gently, and it will reward you - 800 miles to a tankfull in my case.
The position is a bit different with the Mk 2 Superb. The DPF rears its ugly head - these things can nullify all diesel savings and have caused trouble throughout the VAG range. The other is the lower reliability of the 2.0 engine over the 1.9.
I would regard the 1.9 in the new Superb as a potentially reliable, economical trouble free bargain which should not be disregarded on the basis of its quoted BHP. Try it and see. As far as the rest of my mk 1 is concerned, it has been almost completely reliable over the 2.5 years I've had it, and I can't fault Skoda's assembly of it - other than an insignificant paint run.
Less good is VAG's propensity to design in all of the known design defects of the source vehicle (Passat) into the bargain basement Skoda versions, and then deny all knowledge of them. In the case of the Mk 1, rain water ingress and seized suspension bolts are good examples. The Internet is your friend here if you want to run the thing long term without incurring expensive work - the work-around for the VAG design errors are pretty simple (such as removing plenum drainage bungs).
If you can stomach VAG's trading policies, I would say the Skoda is a good buy and in view of its high depreciation, a good long term prospect bought as a used vehicle. For me, the product is fine, but I'm not too sure about giving any more of my money to people who sell products with known serious design defects - and then try to hide the consequences.
659.
|
My company owned Octavia II 1.9Tdi 105 PD has just been replaced with a Superb II with the same 105 PD engine. Over almost four years the Octy covered 115,000 miles, during which time, it never let me down. The only faults related to the cruise control stalk, fuel filter and rear wash wipe.
The Superb II has covered 1,800 miles and is still fairly tight. Nonetheless, I have been getting between 49.90-50.30 mpg, based on ACTUAL fuel used, not the trip computer.
In my opinion, the 105 PD in the Superb II is satisfactory for mainly motorway and A road usage, as long as you're not fully laden most of the time. The 105 PD in my Octy proved to be more potent than the figures suggested and I suspect it was producing more than the indicated 105bhp.
The 105 PD has torque from below 2,000rpm and most overtaking manoevres can be performed using 4th or 5th gear.
Contrary to popular belief, the S model equipped with this engine does nor have a DPF, although one is fitted to the Greenline model.
It is true the PD uses oil, however, regular checking of the oil level should be a routine procedure. My Octy used around 1 litre per 5-7k miles. The Longlife oil costs approx £13.00 at Skoda dealers, however, if you're savvy you can bulk buy from specialist such as Opie Oils. On a variable serving regime the oil required should be certified as complying to VW 506.01 (0w-30) or the newer standard, 507.00 (5W-30). I needed to visit the garage evry 18-19,000 miles, which for a high mileage driver is a bonus compared with the shorter servicing intervals of other manufacturers.
|
|
3 years ago I had a Pug 406 with 110 bhp Hdi engine. I hired a new Passat 1.9. The performance and fuel consumption were way better than the Pug. 50mpg : 42mpg. Torque was amazing. I was convinced that it had the 140bhp engine, not the 105 that it actually had.
|
The two (diesel) cars which finally made it to my short list for a tow car were the PSA 406 and the VAG Passat. I would agree, test driving a 130 PS Superb (Passat) after a 406 resulted in a no-contest win for VAG. The torque of the PD engine makes it an excellent tow car.
659.
|
|
|
|
On similar lines I've known people put off Mercs by others who say: "They use them as taxis in Germany."
All the German brands carry very different status in Germany compared to the UK. My German colleagues genuinely struggle to believe that Volkswagen and Audi are considered 'premium' brands in the UK.
|
Having just jumped out of a (chipped) C5 2.0 HDI 110 and into a DSG Superb 2.0 170, I found the Superb was faster, but at idle the Superb was coarse. Once on the move and the tyre roar took over it was fine, but not as quiet as the C5. Then there are the rock hard seats and suspension.
I'd seriously look at one of the later model old shape or even the new shape C5. The newer diesels are better and the build quality improved.
|
Then there are the rock hard seats and suspension.
Thats a surprise. I have read that the Superb is very comfortable, but this seems to be at odds with that view.
I like soft ride...is the Superb to be removed from my list? Perhaps I need another C5 after all?
|
The one I drove was top of the range trim with leather and the 170 common rail diesel. That might explain the harder suspension. The driving position was nothing like the C5, the steering wheel too low. I've not driven an old Superb but the taxi I was a passenger in felt comfy enough.
Being honest, the Superb was no comfier than the Passat or Laguna.
Worst thing for me was the floor-hinged accelerator which just didn't fit with my size 14's.
I'm 99% sure my next car will be a 2007 C5.
|
My Superb II Pd 105 is equipped with 205/55/R16 94XL (extra load) tyres which are less compliant than the 91 sidewalls fitted to my similiarly engined Octy II.
I agree, the Superb II ride quality is comparable with a Octy II, Laguna, Passat etc. The C5 I test drove was comy, but uninvolving. In comparision the current Mondeo ride quality is breathtaking; absorbing broken edges with seeming ease.
If you opted for a Superb II with 16 inch wheels and 91 sidewall tyres the ride should be better than an Octavia. As it stands, my Superb II drives exactly like my Octy II, the extra weight being well disguised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
