Even as a Skoda owner I agree with that. The person who buys a 'value' Skoda is less likely to make a song and dance about every last niggle, while those who buy the more 'prestige' Audi is more likely to want every problem solved.
Audi A3 > VW Golf > Seat Leon > Skoda Octavia
- Thread starter Ed
- Start date
Even as a Skoda owner I agree with that. The person who buys a 'value' Skoda is less likely to make a song and dance about every last niggle, while those who buy the more 'prestige' Audi is more likely to want every problem solved.
It's like for like I'm comparing. It's not even the brand I'm interested in, it's more the differences that make them different cars. There are so many reports and reviews highlighting how some are better than others, more or less reliable, better or worse quality, yet they're meant to be identical. I'm suggesting that they use common components but apply them differently producing different cars.
I knew this thread would not go down well because the thread title solely picks on cars that are as close as can be from seperate manufacturers but the argument is wider. I currently run a Saab 9-5 Aero which is owned by GM and uses the common GM Epsilon platform yet feels nothing like any Vectra I've ever driven.
The point is, these cars are different despite their DNA.
So you can't even clarify if you are talking previous generation or current?
That's good, at least it means that you actually don't give a damn about the answers.
If you actually READ what I put in my last post, you'll see that ONLY the previous generation were "identical", and that the current generation vary vastly.
You seem blissfully ignorant of this however.
That's good, at least it means that you actually don't give a damn about the answers.
If you actually READ what I put in my last post, you'll see that ONLY the previous generation were "identical", and that the current generation vary vastly.
You seem blissfully ignorant of this however.
Do you think that's a fair reflection of the results of a reliability survey? If so, then perhaps the cheap Japanese hatchbacks aren't as reliable as previously thought.
Pretty much. I really don't care about any of the cars. Just how they're applied by their respective manufacturers.
You're missing my point.
Maybe somebody needs to decide exactly what it is that is being compared here.
As somebody above said - are we talking the current models or are we talking Mk1.
Are we talking mid-range, top-end or are we looking at price-for-price to see what you get for your money.
I could be bias because I'm buying anything but a "standard" Skoda.
However, honestly, do you not think this is good looking?
As somebody above said - are we talking the current models or are we talking Mk1.
Are we talking mid-range, top-end or are we looking at price-for-price to see what you get for your money.
I could be bias because I'm buying anything but a "standard" Skoda.
However, honestly, do you not think this is good looking?
parts are identical across the platform
I suspect my engine was built in one place then shipped to another in the group..all my hoses are audi branded parts
so I'm guessing the 2 litre pertol turbo engines are all assembled in a generic factory then shipped to whichever assembly line for whichever car..be it audi/vw/seat
brakes are the same..identical parts so my workmates golf gti.
his interor lighting is better than mine but he only gets fabric seats..stalks and switchgear across the steering column and climate control are both identical in appearance and to the touch...in fact I am willing to bet the dual zone climatronic is an identical unit again shipped throughout the family platform
it simply makes more sense for large components to be all from the same parts bin...and you differentiate the brands with softer touch materials/damped grab handles etc..you make the little things seem a premium item so you split the brands
so audi is your executive marque, seat is 'sporty' VW is sensible and skoda are good value (good value doenst have to mean low quality, as can be seen by its standing in all of the driver surveys)
I suspect my engine was built in one place then shipped to another in the group..all my hoses are audi branded parts
so I'm guessing the 2 litre pertol turbo engines are all assembled in a generic factory then shipped to whichever assembly line for whichever car..be it audi/vw/seat
brakes are the same..identical parts so my workmates golf gti.
his interor lighting is better than mine but he only gets fabric seats..stalks and switchgear across the steering column and climate control are both identical in appearance and to the touch...in fact I am willing to bet the dual zone climatronic is an identical unit again shipped throughout the family platform
it simply makes more sense for large components to be all from the same parts bin...and you differentiate the brands with softer touch materials/damped grab handles etc..you make the little things seem a premium item so you split the brands
so audi is your executive marque, seat is 'sporty' VW is sensible and skoda are good value (good value doenst have to mean low quality, as can be seen by its standing in all of the driver surveys)
Maybe somebody needs to decide exactly what it is that is being compared here.
As somebody above said - are we talking the current models or are we talking Mk1.
Are we talking mid-range, top-end or are we looking at price-for-price to see what you get for your money.
I could be bias because I'm buying anything but a "standard" Skoda.
However, honestly, do you not think this is good looking?
I do..but I have one and I think its quite a handsome car...put it on 18's lower it a bit and go for stealth black on the grill and it looks not half bad at all!
and as an overall package its a fine compromise for a bloke that needs a family car but still wants a laugh every now and then....every review has always been complimentary...not much bad to say about the vRS at all
![[TR]SweetSpotOz](/styles/overclockers/avatars/6.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,183
- Location
- everywhere
.
Last edited:
You've highlighted the problem. The Evo link I posted had a Seat that was £3k cheaper than the Golf, had more power, but was softer in steering and handling. When compounded with different looks, brand and interior, it's a different car, isn't it?
It's based on the same platform so justifies it's position in this company.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,253
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
I think we are looking at this from a different angle, to some it seems to be news that the engines / parts in a seat are all branded Audi / VW and the chassi's are the same.
Interesting how many people are linking interior quality to build quality. Just because the Audi has a nice interior (and I rate them as having a brilliant interior), doesn't mean that the rest of the components (brakes, transmission etc) are any more reliable or durable.
I don't think anyone has said otherwise, have they?
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,183
- Location
- everywhere
.
Last edited:
So, as per the thread title, the cars all use the same engine, parts and chassis but the cars are not comparable?
I'll be upgrading to a BMW and sticking two fingers up to the VAG.
I did originally base a childish reply based around a slight edit of that quote but thought better of it
This train of thought has been mentioned to me several times since buying my Octavia. People seem very keen to jump to its defense for some reason "Yeah but its basically a VW apart from the badge" "Its got the same engine as an Audi TT etc." For me none of this matters. Why did I buy it? Three letter- VFM. For £6.5k I got a decent performing practical hatch with a tardis of a boot that doesn't look too much like a slapped behind. It would have been even cheaper if I'd got one with at least average mileage on it but the first minter I came across had naff all miles and the price premium to match. Despite the odometer tax it was still way cheaper than an (IMO) worse looking Leon Cupra or a slower Mk4 Golf GTi of similar vintage.
The interior DOES feel cheaper than its Mk4 Golf, Leon and A3 brothers... but brand new my particular one was £14600 and towards the end of its run they were knocking them out for nearer £13k if you shopped in the right places. That is crazy value but you have to take it with the cost cutting that goes with it IMO.
As a car, it's hard to argue against its value for money.I did originally base a childish reply based around a slight edit of that quote but thought better of it
This train of thought has been mentioned to me several times since buying my Octavia. People seem very keen to jump to its defense for some reason "Yeah but its basically a VW apart from the badge" "Its got the same engine as an Audi TT etc." For me none of this matters. Why did I buy it? Three letter- VFM. For £6.5k I got a decent performing practical hatch with a tardis of a boot that doesn't look too much like a slapped behind. It would have been even cheaper if I'd got one with at least average mileage on it but the first minter I came across had naff all miles and the price premium to match. Despite the odometer tax it was still way cheaper than an (IMO) worse looking Leon Cupra or a slower Mk4 Golf GTi of similar vintage.
The interior DOES feel cheaper than its Mk4 Golf, Leon and A3 brothers... but brand new my particular one was £14600 and towards the end of its run they were knocking them out for nearer £13k if you shopped in the right places. That is crazy value but you have to take it with the cost cutting that goes with it IMO.