|
I think that most Skoda buyers look for practicality coupled with what the testers call 'driveability' - and get it; hence the high satisfaction rating in the customer surveys, Which? being the latest.
Part of the practicality is the ability to see out of the back and the avoidance of blind spots. The Rapid's clean, straight lines may not be avant-garde but at least when reversing one you would have less chance of hitting an invisible child.
Purely out of interest (as my Octavia is only 16 months old) I test-drove a new Volvo V40 today. In most ways it was excellent, and I liked it a lot: but its 'kicked-up' styling and smallish rear window meant that reversing had to be done by mirrors and a bit of guesswork.
Those valuing avant-garde styling above all else probably won't have Skoda on their shortlists anyway.
I think the idea is for the Octavia's replacement to be bigger, so maybe the Superb won't be replaced, rather as the ever-increasing size of the Ford Mondeo has made a bigger Ford unnecessary. There will always be people (not 659 FBE and no longer me) that will pay thousands of pounds extra for an Audi, but I do wonder why anyone would buy a VW Passat. Maybe its days also are numbered - hence perhaps the deletion of 'Passat' from the CC.
The Phaeton? Maybe aimed at the home market in Germany: I can't think why VW did a right-hand-drive version.
|
|
So, not quite the dehydrated 'Octy' that I imagined it was going to be!
Nevertheless, that's one dull looking motor...
|
Avant, after the comment below I was expecting Skodas to look a little more exciting. That doesn't mean they have to have huge blindspots. Personally I feel the Mk2 Octavia is an improvement in looks over my Mk1. I'd have a Mk2 Octavia estate, if the ride wasn't so harsh, and engine wasn't as gruff. I might try another incase the one I drove wasn't representive of this model.
In terms of styling the MK2 Fabia IMO, is a backward step compared with the Mk1. While the MK1 Superb just looked like a large Passat AND the MK2 looks awkward unless it is the estate. Fortunately with just two boxes it is harder to stuff up the design compared with three boxes! The estate is a fine looking car.
'The designer behind the new Superb – an innovative and elegant take on the Volkswagen Passat – says that future Skodas will be "more avant-garde [that] will make you feel well-dressed," while still incorporating the spaciousness and value that the brand has come to embody underneath the VW Group umbrella.'
I won't feel well dressed in a Rapid!!!
|
|
Even though its new sister car from Seat, the Toledo, is I'm sure almost identical in every measurable way, the differences (small, but noticeable) in the front and rear makes it IMHO the better-looking car.
I would consider them both as a direct replacement for my 6-year-old Mazda3 saloon.
Good points:-
- Benefits of a saloon in more flowing looks and its smooth shape may offer a lower drag coefficient (better mpg?) than a hatchback;
- The benefits of having a removable parcel shelf (its very difficult to fit large boxes in my Mazda3's boot [suitcases are fine] due to the relatively small boot aperture).
Not so good points:-
- Quite basic interior - I had hoped the "bog standard" VAG interior would be changed (the new 2013 Leon is better in this respect) to take it a bit more upmarket;
- Still not convinced by the small-engined TFSIs over their real-life efficiency or the longevity/reliability of this type of engine, given the problems now apparently being sufferent (snapping timing chains) on the similar TFSI-supercharged engines.
I would much prefer a larger smooth engine which you don't have to rag every time you want to overtake, and is easier to drive over long distances. It'll be a very hard task to convince me from buying Japanese - just a shame the Japanese makes don't make the sort of car I'm after at the moment!
|
|
What are you looking for in a car, Andy?
|
|
My criteria are quite numerous, so here goes:-
- Medium-sized coupe (or hatch styled as a coupe, like the Rapid - better boot access);
- Good-looking (too many bland cars or horrid-looking rear ends [and very poor rear visibility] - e.g. Scirocco/Veloster) and stylish inside and out, without compromising on useability/practicality - many modern cars sacrifice one for the other - why can't you have both?;
- Can seat 4 adults (less worried about this - just enough to seat rear passengers for "short" journeys up to 2hrs);
- Reasonable boot space (275-400 ltrs) and/or capable of putting the back seats down for more room (capable of fitting in golf/holiday stuff);
- Reliable (long-term) and good dealers/after-sales experience [deal breaker];
- Good bit of poke, but smooth delivery (I don't want to have to thrash the nuts off it to get it going) - a 2ltr V6 or similar would be nice. Reasonable mpg - I've noticed that many "modern" engines (e.g. the small TFSIs etc) are nowhere near as economic as their "official" figures suggest, hence why I'm looking for the larger engine that doesn't have to be strained to make progress - a more relaxing driving experience;
- Good handling (doesn't have to be quite as sharp as a Focus or similar), but not heavy (no Mercs). Comfortable ride [deal breaker] - I don't want bling-bling 19in wheels with 295/30 tyres - standard 16 or (max) 17in with similar profile to my current tyres (205/55) with decent suspension - I do not want to feel every bump in the road (bad back);
- Good value for money (reasonable price and servicing) - I'll likely keep a really good car for 7-10+ years. Residual values less important as a result, so I don't have to have a "prestige" German marque.
I'm just not sure if anything out there (or soon to be) meets all the above, so I'd rather wait until something I really like comes along than just buy something I don't really want. I realise that you'd be very lucky to find a car that meets all your criteria, but I can't find any that meet even half that (and the deal-breakers) at present. My 6yo Mazda3 is generally sound, so I'll keep it for now...
|
|
Your Mazda 3 meets your criteria better than most. I'm not sure what your budget is, but if you buy new next time, the new Volvo V40 will be worth a look. I had a test drive last week and was very impressed with it apart from poor rear visibility. I'll wait and see if they bring out an estate version.
Alternatively something with the VAG 1.8 TSI comes close to your need for smooth delivery. I've never understood why you can't have a Golf with this engijne, but you can have an Audi A3 or an Octavia. Maybe the forthcoming Rapid or Toledo will have it as an option.
|
|
|
|
Engineer Andy, you could do far worse than try an Avensis, especially Tourer, bit bigger than a Mazda 3 but should work out a cost effective long termer whilst meeting all your needs.
Auris might be big enough and is an underrated car, but it will never win any beauty contests, i couldn't bring meself.
Most Toyota dealers are first class, with good value servicing and excellent maker back up, when i've had Toyota's i never bothered with independents, my local dealer looked after me very well, Northampton that is.
|
|
|
My criteria are quite numerous, so here goes:-
- Good bit of poke, but smooth delivery (I don't want to have to thrash the nuts off it to get it going) - a 2ltr V6 or similar would be nice. Reasonable mpg - I've noticed that many "modern" engines (e.g. the small TFSIs etc) are nowhere near as economic as their "official" figures suggest, hence why I'm looking for the larger engine that doesn't have to be strained to make progress - a more relaxing driving experience;
- Good handling (doesn't have to be quite as sharp as a Focus or similar), but not heavy (no Mercs). Comfortable ride [deal breaker] - I don't want bling-bling 19in wheels with 295/30 tyres - standard 16 or (max) 17in with similar profile to my current tyres (205/55) with decent suspension - I do not want to feel every bump in the road (bad back);
You have almost no chance, those 2 criteria alone really are mutually exclusive except in larger cars.
The vast majority of people do not want those wheels or "sports" suspension, even those who think they do probably don't. It used to be these things were an option, now they are practically compulsory.
Having similar criteria myself, I think the only hope is with something 10 years old.
|
|
Actually a good approximation to what I am looking for is the US/Canadian version of the Honda Integra Type S, a 2 litre "warm" (~160 bhp) version of the import-only Type R (the later mid 2000s version) with normal (not rock hard as with most Integras over the years) suspension.
Obviously they're now showing their age, but I like the look of them externally, and you can do almost anything inside thesedays - something more upmarket than just functional/sporty.
A shame that many manufacturers seem to have (IMHO) "agreements" in place with tyre manufacturers to use low profile tyres on almost their entire range, when only REAL sports cars actually can use the full potential of such tyres. I'm sure it sells more tyres (they don't last as long as "normal" ones) and gives a lot of work to back specialists, but I'm sure whoever "breaks the cycle" will get a lot of goodwill from customers - cheaper tyres that last longer, are not noticeably different in handling AND result in cheaper running costs (skinnier tyres = better fuel economy).
Let's hope some of these forthcoming cars actually bother to listen to majority of car owners, not just journos who want them to be "edgy" and "hip" by the use of low profile tyres and poorly matched engines to their use. I thinks things were much better 10 years or so ago when it wasn't all about bling/horsepower for all cars - the manufacturers seem to have forgotten who their real audience is. Shame.
|
|
I so agree with you. The one downside to my Octavia vRS is the stupid 'sporty' wheels and tyres (225 x 40 x 18) - the first on any FWD car in the last 40 years to be useless in snow. The difference in handling with the winter tyres on (Kleber Quadraxer 205 x 55 x 16) is negligible. But you can't have that engine in any other version of the Octavia.
|
|
Its amazing how a car manufacturer can now allow higher profile winter tyres (yours are the same size as my summer tyres!) and not for summer ones - what a great wheez! If you do, your insurance is invalidated! Mine as "V" rated (max. 149mph), yet an "H" rated tyre would suffice (I believe my 1.6 can do about 116mph), still, slightly better than my previous car (96N Micra 1.0 "S"), which had standard fit 175/60 R13 W's, even though it couldn't top 100mph (actually 93mph).
I bet the new Rapid will be the same. I still can't believe you have to shell out quite often over £400 for a set of new tyres every 18-36 months on many standard cars. I just wish some of these companies bothered to listen to their customers for once - hopefully Skoda and others may cotton on before releasing new vehicles.
|
|
|
|
