[quote=“sulavaca”][quote=“RobinTaiwan”]Personally, I think the Skoda looks really ugly. I don’t know how much they go for, but I probably wouldn’t even pay half the asking price for it. But you know your cars and if you say it’s a good buy, I believe you. It just doesn’t appeal to me.
How about the Audi going outdated sooner? Why is that? I just bought one so I’d appreciate an explanation.
No offense taken, BTW. I know it can be seen as excess. My wife and I have discussed this. But we both work hard and we decided to treat ourselves. Life is short.[/quote]
Going outdated sooner I am referring to its looks. The premium of an Audi A3 is all based upon the cosmetics. The Skoda is priced along side VWs when on the used market as opposed to the Audi which depreciates faster. Purchasing an Audi is like investing in a pair of 2010 Channel slippers. Next year, they just aren’t in fashion so they lose a premium value. That’s unless you keep them in a box for fifty years and then sell them. [/quote]
That makes sense. Thanks. Unfortunately, I can’t afford to park it for fifty years. The plan is to keep it for at least 6 years. Hopefully the depreciation curve will have settled a bit by then. But that’s just a plan. Goals fail but plans change. You never know…
[quote]a gearbox to pull your hair out over[/quote]Since my last two cars were Camrys, I owed it to myself to check out the new one when we were car shopping. The salesman praised the gearbox. But salesmen are… well… salesmen. :liar: I didn’t get to try one.
yeah dont know what’s the logic behind it but when switch to “S mode”, the gear display always says 4th gear even though it’s in 1st gear…weird.[/quote]
Apparently after speaking with Toyota on a number of occasions about this the best they can guess (as nobody really claims to understand fully) is that the designers wished to display how many gears are remaining which can be selected instead of telling you which gear you are in. If I didn’t know better I would have guessed that was a Chinese idea and not a Japanese one. :loco: Obviously it makes sense to nobody. It takes too damn long to change gear with that box in the manumatic mode. Its best just to leave it in drive and stay away from the flappy paddles.
[quote=“sulavaca”]I sit in a Skoda and think its a really practical and an extremely pleasing car to drive for the money.
I sit in an Audi and think its very nice, but it will be outdated next year, its smaller than a cheaper alternative and I can’t bare to see it scratched or dirty. And I don’t want to put my kid or my tools in the back.[/quote]
[quote=“llary”][quote=“sulavaca”]I sit in a Skoda and think its a really practical and an extremely pleasing car to drive for the money.
I sit in an Audi and think its very nice, but it will be outdated next year, its smaller than a cheaper alternative and I can’t bare to see it scratched or dirty. And I don’t want to put my kid or my tools in the back.[/quote]
Yawn.[/quote]
Yawn as much as you like, but when you pay a 40-60% premium for the same car with a different badge on and some LED spectacles as opposed to a larger, more practical and more reliable one, then I count my own expression as one that is more of a puzzled looking jaw drop than a yawn.
[quote=“sulavaca”][quote=“llary”][quote=“sulavaca”]I sit in a Skoda and think its a really practical and an extremely pleasing car to drive for the money.
I sit in an Audi and think its very nice, but it will be outdated next year, its smaller than a cheaper alternative and I can’t bare to see it scratched or dirty. And I don’t want to put my kid or my tools in the back.[/quote]
Yawn.[/quote]
Yawn as much as you like, but when you pay a 40-60% premium for the same car with a different badge on and some LED spectacles as opposed to a larger, more practical and more reliable one, then I count my own expression as one that is more of a puzzled looking jaw drop than a yawn.[/quote]
Wait a minute, there. Five years from now the Audi is still going to be worth a lot more than the five years old Skoda, mate. And it’s a much nicer car. Like I said, large is not a factor. In fact, large is a detriment to me. As for reliability, it remains to be proven. I wouldn’t bet on it. You’re saying yourself that it’s the same car! It’s not. You carry tools… I carry a briefcase.
[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]
Wait a minute, there. Five years from now the Audi is still going to be worth a lot more than the five years old Skoda, mate.[/quote]
Maybe, but the Skoda will probably take less of a %age hit in depreciation. But anyway, a large part of a car purchase is emotional to some extent, so be happy with what you bought and allow Sulavaca his practical nature.
yeah dont know what’s the logic behind it but when switch to “S mode”, the gear display always says 4th gear even though it’s in 1st gear…weird.[/quote]
Apparently after speaking with Toyota on a number of occasions about this the best they can guess (as nobody really claims to understand fully) is that the designers wished to display how many gears are remaining which can be selected instead of telling you which gear you are in. If I didn’t know better I would have guessed that was a Chinese idea and not a Japanese one. :loco: Obviously it makes sense to nobody. It takes too damn long to change gear with that box in the manumatic mode. Its best just to leave it in drive and stay away from the flappy paddles.[/quote]
My car has a lever between the seats, and a pedal on the floor, that you use together to change gear. Sounds complicated but you get the hang of it.
I think the Chinese Logic Light to tell me how many gears I have (or something) must be broken, though. . Its a very old car.
I am mearly saying the Skoda is more practical when I refer to carrying tools. Perhaps an Audi is more suitable to wearing a suit . The overall dimensions of the Octavia are close to that of the A3 in fact. Skoda also offers the Octavia Combi for even more loading space if needed, for still less money than the A3. The underpinnings are almost identical albeit more reliable on the Skoda.
When you say the Audi will be worth more, you are referring to a price tag, I am referring to figures concerning purchase cost difference. I also know that Audi suffers much greater depreciation over Skoda overall which Audi are trying hard to tackle at this time. Here are some reliability facts to take a look at.
[quote]What Car 2009: Skoda
• League position: 9th
• Claims per 100 vehicles: 25.2
• Average age (years): 4.09
• Average mileage: 38,829
• Average repair cost: £168
• Average time for repair (hours): 2.5
This is the first time Skoda has appeared in the Warranty Direct reliability survey and its ninth-place position makes it an impressive entry – particularly as it’s the highest-scoring European car manufacturer this year.
Putting its VW and Seat siblings to shame, Skoda has the second-cheapest average repair cost, an average repair time and a lower-than-average claims rate. However, it still has some way to go to catch up with the Japanese makes at the top of the table.
As with many cars in this survey, the majority of problems occur with the axle and suspension, followed by trouble with electrical components.
Verdict: *** An impressive achievement by Skoda, proving mainstream cars can be just as reliable, if not more so, than prestige brands.[/quote]
[quote]What Car 2009: Audi
• League position: 28th
• Claims per 100 vehicles: 41.2
• Average age (years): 4.4
• Average mileage: 51,707
• Average repair cost: £395
• Average time for repair (hours): 2.8
This is an extremely disappointing showing from Audi, because it prides itself on the quality of its cars.
It is also a downhill slide from last year, when Audi scraped two stars overall. This year, there are, on average, more claims per 100 cars, rising from 39.4 in 2004’s survey to 41.2.
It is also taking longer for the problems to be fixed, with the average repair time going up from two-and-a-half hours to nearly three. Nearly half of all the problems reported relate to the axles and suspension, although Audi’s braking systems seem to give owners little cause for concern.
However, the good news is that the current A4 occupies a respectable ninth place in the overall table of individual models.
Verdict: * A poor performance from Audi – we hope they can build on the success of the latest A4.[/quote]
[quote]JD Power 2009: Skoda Octavia
Overall ranking: 13th=
Skoda is the Volkswagen Group’s value-for-money brand. So why is the Octavia such a strong and consistent performer? Well, for a start, it’s unlikely to break down; owners told JD Power that the engines and transmissions could be relied upon. If trouble does strike, it’s more likely to be a minor issue with the cabin.
Should you need to visit a dealer, you can expect good service; Octavia drivers told JD Power that helpful staff and work completed on time were the norm.
The Octavia is a very likeable car as well as a reliable one. Owners gave strong scores for the driving experience, the roomy cabin and the way the car looks.
What’s more, the Skoda should be cheap to run. High marks were awarded for fuel and insurance costs, and service and repair bills.[/quote]
[quote]JD Power 2009: Audi A3
Overall ranking: 38th=
The Audi A3 moves in the wrong direction this year, dropping from 20th place in 2008 to 38th. That said, Audi owners still found plenty to praise, with enthusiasm for the way the A3 drives, the cabin and the looks. The dealers also earned a vote of thanks for their courteous staff and quality of service.
In terms of reliability, however, the A3 sits in the middle of the pack, dragged down by complaints about the stereo. Drivers said that running costs were no better than average, and insurance and servicing bills were dear. [/quote]
Sulavaca, do you think it’s possible that the average Skoda buyer has lower expectations from his car, based on the price point and assumed brand perception, and therefore is more willing to accept small problems or tardier service? I know that if I were to purchase an Audi I’d expect to be treated like royalty down at the dealer and would be a lot more fussy about minor issues with the product…
As you know, I was strongly considering an Audi last year and likely would have bought one if available. One of the reasons I didn’t, aside from the lack of suitable cars, was the idea that service here wasn’t up to par and that would likely leave me feeling unsatisfied with the whole owner experience. Having paid a lot less money for a Japanese car with far better specs I feel less disappointed with the dealer experience than if I’d bought the Audi…
I believe there is a little of both reasoning behind the Audi versus Skoda ratings.
Firstly the factory in Czech does a much better job of assembly than Audi’s and VW’s plants, which they are of course very proud of.
The number of physical repairs and warranty claims to Skodas are far less than Audi, so it isn’t simply a situation derived from differing levels of expectation.
Yes, Audi customers are more often a little disappointed than Skoda owners too though I think as they are paying a whopping premium for the brand and styling and so do expect a “luxury” car for their money, when the after-sales service doesn’t quite perform up to par according to customer response. I think you would find better service from a few of Audi’s competitors in the luxury brand market. I’m referring to Audi model versus Skoda model here though as of course Audi provide different vehicle solutions throughout their range to those provided by Skoda. Yes, if I were a Skoda buyer I wouldn’t expect free ice-cream in the showroom and a gloriously design CI such as with Audi. Audi sells models such as the A3 and A4 based on its CI and vehicle’s appearance only which is very polished. That’s where Skoda drivers feel more satisfied in general though as the cost of their car is not reflected by how many flat panel screens and Armani clad salesmen can be found in the showroom or how many blingy bits are fitted to their interiors.
If you look at Skoda’s response times to fixing their cars then they are slightly quicker. Quick enough to warrant a huge advantage over Audi? I would say no. Fewer problems over all though for far lower priced alternative vehicles which offer greater practicality coupled with less of an image association have all resulted in the overwhelming praise that Skoda receives.
For one I am also happy that the East Europeans have succeeded in this field so well as they were so often joked about in the past in the car industry. Yes, they are using German technology as well as their own, but they have shown that they can surprise even the Germans at doing a better job of assembly and customer satisfaction than them that had always previously been considered to be amongst the best in the world.
I think redwagon raised a good point. For example, this made me laugh: [quote]in terms of reliability, however, the A3 sits in the middle of the pack, dragged down by complaints about the stereo.[/quote]
Dragged down in the middle of the pack because people complain about the stereo? That’s ridiculous, in my opinion, and it doesn’t instill much trust in the survey. I am inclined to think that people who buy a much cheaper Skoda will be less likely to even remember to complain about a stereo issue.
Two more points.
First,
[quote]Overall ranking: 13th=
Skoda is the Volkswagen Group’s value-for-money brand.[/quote]
The key words here are “for-the-money.” Sure it’s maybe more value for your bucks but it doesn’t mean that it’s a better car. By that logic, someone should write off all the really nice cars that do not offer the same value for the bucks. There are a lot of cars out there that are way better than the Skoda. But you have to pay the premium if you want one, and they still will not match the Skoda, or the Audi A3 for that matter, when it comes to “value-for-money.” You get less for your money but you still get a better car, and that’s why people buy these nice cars; to have a nicer car. And yes, looks matter!
My second point is even more pertinent, I think. You have to take the market demographics into consideration, and in this regard, these surveys fail miserably. Firstly, you could say that people who buy the Skoda because they think/know they are getting a better value for their bucks are most likely people who are really conscientious about spending money on a car. As a result, their driving habits will be considerably different as a general rule. They won’t drive the piss out of their new car and they will be careful about fuel consumption, etc. Less led in their shoes so to speak. Secondly, you have to take into consideration that the people who buy a sports car instead of a family sedan will also have very different driving habits.
You’re likely to see a drop in reliability based on such skewed surveys that do not take these things into consideration. That’s why, for example, a lot of Subarus WRX tend to be beat to the ground after five years whereas a much cheaper sedan family car will hold up much better reliability stats. And that is despite the fact that the Subaru is a much better and much more reliable car at the time it’s driven off the dealer’s lot. Take all the Skoda drivers and let them apply their driving habits on sporty Audis and vise versa, I think your surveys regarding reliability will paint a much different picture.
Now, of course the Audi costs more, and evidently, the Skoda is a better buy for the bucks. But I don’t see why this should stop anyone from buying a better, nicer car if they can afford it. As redwagon mentioned, buying a car is in large part an emotional process. For the last ten odd years, I stuck with the tested and true reliability of the Camry. That’s where my emotions lied for a long time. This time I decided to treat myself, and without trying to sound inappropriate, I can afford it quite comfortably.
This is from a very happy new Audi A3 driver. Well, not quite yet. We’re picking it up this evening after work. :discodance:
best reply so far …and a classic example on how the owner will defend their purchase if [strike]attacked[/strike] edit : critized or commented or whatever
I am sure that your choice makes perfect sense to you and I note that you acknowledge the purchase is somewhat emotional and that you put value on perceived luxury by admitting you were ‘treating yourself’ by spending more money on the Audi. Sulavaca’s priorities in purchase are different. Audi marketing failed to convince him where it chimed with your sensibilities. If everyone thought the way Sulavaca does, Audi would either have a very different product line or would cease to exist!
Well a couple of things I could add in this regard though that I think are relevant. When I worked for Subaru the most reliable car in the entire range was the Subaru Impreza Turbo, not any of the other models below it. That was going by the manufacturer’s warranty claims per model.
What you say about typical users of these vehicles is true when referring to satisfaction stats, but the reliability stats really speak for themselves. In terms of reliability only Skoda is the best vehicle which VW has under its wing, no argument. Refering to the way in which the vehicles are driven differently; Lets also remember which of these two brands of vehicles are more often abused by business reps. So we can’t assume anything about which way these two are used on a general basis. Lets also think of which of these cars are more typically used for pulling caravans and trailers perhaps. So it doesn’t seem so clear cut to me.
In terms of value for money its a slightly less simple argument and perhaps this is where we differ. You believe the Audi branding and overall ‘aesthetics feel’ (please correct me if I’m wrong) justify its price and so equal greater value for money over the Skoda. I on the other hand feel a lot less impressed by a car’s looks. Perhaps because I see a vehicle’s looks as being comprised of different lines only and relatively cheap, additional materials which bare little or no relevance to the vehicle’s performance. Therefore as someone who views cars based on their technology, reliability and performance I can only refer to the Skoda. It offers the same technology as the Audi and the VW. It even offers [in my opinion] a much more usable rear loading area. And it happens to come at a fraction of the price. And it happens to retain its residual value better than the Audi. [sorry for sounding like a parrot]
Yes, but they aren’t comprised of the same technology. and they don’t work the same way at all.
I hope you enjoy your car and continue t be happy with your purchase. If I were right all the time then the world would revolve around whatever I say and there would only be half a dozen cars on the market, so I wouldn’t take it to heart. I’m all about getting people the best practical car for their money, not the most emotional car for their money, otherwise I would be recommending Italian cars [shudder].
[/quote]
…
. Its a very old car.
. The overall dimensions of the Octavia are close to that of the A3 in fact. Skoda also offers the Octavia Combi for even more loading space if needed, for still less money than the A3. The underpinnings are almost identical albeit more reliable on the Skoda.
Well, not quite yet. We’re picking it up this evening after work. :discodance:
…and a classic example on how the owner will defend their purchase if [strike]attacked[/strike] edit : critized or commented or whatever 
I thought I made very good sense. :raspberry:
and they don’t work the same way at all.
It may well be! It may well be! Its still going to remain a favourite for a while yet though I feel.