The Octavia is due for replacement in about 5 months, high milage company car so CO and economy are important and will be diesel.
The Octavia has done 96 k virtually fault free miles - the rear wiper blade disintegrated and er . . . .
SWMBO says I can't have another Skoda and I am all for a quiet life.
Now I need something with a boot to match the Octavia, and room for 4. Tried a Passat CC but while the boot is big enough but the aperture is too small to be practical.
Would consider estates and probably up to about £25k although it is lease cost that matters.
Going back to a Honda is not on as the CO at 154g is the same as it was 8 years ago . . . and after a Honda and a Skoda don't think I want to risk a potentially unreliable (in comparison) French car.
Thoughts so far:
Volvo V60/V70 (2.0 D5), Passat Estate (2.0 140),
Can't stand the look of the Mondeo.
Any more suggestions?
|
|
Need to be looking at BMW's. Very low CO2, great residual values means lower lease cost per £ of car.
|
|
Runflats - no chance, never mind the image!
|
|
runflats are not the problem they were.
|
>> Need to be looking at BMW's. Very low CO2, great residual values means lower lease
>> cost per £ of car.
I agree. If you're choosing based on a combination of tax, cost, and performance, they are streets ahead of the competition.
On simple maths, I can't think of a reason not to replace mine with another. The only other car of its size that can match its CO2 figure gives away 53 bhp!! All the others that get closer to its power output will cost me a good percentage more in BIK.
And I agree, runflats are not the problem they were, although if you go for a 320d in EfficientDynamics guise, it doesn't have them.
|
And great cars in the winter at low temperatures :-)
Back to being serious...
I sat in a BMW 520d SE and it was very nice. At that point in time it was a cheap car on our scheme. I wasn't sure I wanted one but did go and have a look. I then went in a top of the range 3 series. Horrible in comparison. I think the new series is closer.
I also liked Audis - a lot. But I found I liked the VW more.
With the new look to the VW CC (no longer going to be a Passat) I'd have probably gone for a Passat estate. When I was ordering the wheels I thought looked good were unavailable in the UK. They are now.
|
>>>don't think I want to risk a potentially unreliable (in comparison) French car.
Well my 2009 C5 Tourer is 2yrs old this Christmas and has been totally fault free. It would have the edge on refinement over an Octavia.
We have 2 more new shape C5s in the immediate family and neither has given trouble.
Edit: Even a 3 series Tourer is £130/mth more than a C5 Tourer with Ling. The C5 Tourer is actually £20/mth cheaper than an Octavia Estate.
You might not prefer them but I wouldn't discount one on reliability worries.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 09:06
|
Mazda 6?
Big boot. Japanese reliability. Lots of toys at your budget. Look quite good, too (IMHO).
|
>> Mazda 6?
>> Big boot. Japanese reliability.
Diesel problems allegedly though:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/mazda/6-2008/?section=bad
|
Although the current Mazda6 diesel has a DPF designed to regenerate twice as quickly and half as often.
Now I'd go for the new Mazda6 in 2013 if it looked like this:
www.motoringspy.co.uk/1698/mazda-takeri-concept-hints-at-new-mazda6-saloon/
|
>> www.motoringspy.co.uk/1698/mazda-takeri-concept-hints-at-new-mazda6-saloon/
They'll chicken out when it comes to building it and it won't look anything like that picture. The Ford Mondeo had an almost Aston Martin look about it in the concept pictures but ended up looking like a Laguna. I hope I'm wrong though.
Toyota Avensis estate?
|
|
Dull as ditch-water (IMHO)
|
|
The Hyundai i40 Tourer is on my list to look at when I'm ready.
|
The i40 looks like a good car. I bet it's not on the list of company cars the OP has available.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 9 Nov 11 at 00:44
|
>> Now I'd go for the new Mazda6 in 2013 if it looked like this:
>>
>> www.motoringspy.co.uk/1698/mazda-takeri-concept-hints-at-new-mazda6-saloon/
>>
The roof line will be higher, the chin will be higher off the road and the inside will be a boring shade of grey.
|
>> Mazda 6?
>> Big boot. Japanese reliability. Lots of toys at your budget. Look quite good, too (IMHO).
>>
last time I looked the CO values were too high
|
"SWMBO says I can't have another Skoda"
Whyever not? If she simply fancies a change, show her a Superb estate. Simiar size to a Mondeo but to my eyes it looks a lot better.
Otherwise I'd say your Volvo and VW suggestions are the best bets. Toyota Avensis worthy bu dull; Vauxhall Insignia not much liked by road testers, and the stylist has got the better of the rear end shape over practicality. Maybe you need to try one, and also I agree the Hyundai i40 is well worth a look.
Last edited by: Avant on Wed 9 Nov 11 at 01:14
|
>> Whyever not? If she simply fancies a change, show her a Superb estate. Simiar size
>> to a Mondeo but to my eyes it looks a lot better.
Having looked at a few large estate cars before buying my new car, the Suberb is a, well, suberb choice. It has a bigger boot than the Mondeo, and the BMW 5 series/A6 Avant too, with the rear seats up at least - 600ish litres IIRC. Well equipped and finshed, and to my eye it had a more pleasant interior than the Ford, though of course that's a personal choice. In 2.0TDI 170 / Elegance trim it is however quite expensive, and the current Skoda VAT free offers don't apply to all variants
|
>>>Superb estate. Similar size to a Mondeo but to my eyes it looks a lot better.
Hmmm... not the front... a very unfortunate look.
|
>> "SWMBO says I can't have another Skoda"
>> Toyota Avensis worthy bu dull; Vauxhall Insignia not much liked by road testers, and the stylist has got
>> the better of the rear end shape over practicality. Maybe you need to try one,
>> and also I agree the Hyundai i40 is well worth a look.
>>
Drove an Avensis estate just after the current model came out, ergonomics are terrible. Couldn't live with it.
Did briefly think about the Hyundai thinking it would be cheap but £25k= for the spec I would be looking at - makes a Passat look cheap. And emissions are high.
|
|
Another thought - I think your current Octavia is a standard 1.9. If the Superb is too big, and you can go up to £25,000, get an Octavia vRS (petrol or diesel according to your annual mileage) which should be different enough from the current one to keep SWMBO happy.
|
>> Another thought - I think your current Octavia is a standard 1.9. If the Superb
>> is too big, and you can go up to £25,000, get an Octavia vRS (petrol
>> or diesel according to your annual mileage) which should be different enough from the current
>> one to keep SWMBO happy.
>> Not different enough - it will still have a Skoda badge.
Unfortunately she still thinks Skodas are the same as they were 20 years ago. Was difficult getting her to agree to this one and even after nearly 4 years she still doesn't see how good they are!
|
>> Unfortunately she still thinks Skodas are the same as they were 20 years ago. Was
>> difficult getting her to agree to this one and even after nearly 4 years she
>> still doesn't see how good they are!
>>
I get the same with SWMBO, but you also say in the OP:
"The Octavia has done 96 k virtually fault free miles - the rear wiper blade disintegrated and er . . . ."
So even with good solid evidence on your side, SWMBO won't be persuaded?
This continued prejudice against Skoda gets me down. Just more evidence that the human race likes to ignore reality (see also the Debt Crisis).
|
Can't imagine why you wouldn't just replace like with like, if it's been as good as you say and your essential requirements haven't changed. If you've had one Skoda I'd imagine you'd already done the hard part of overcoming whatever negative perceptions linger - but then i know nothing of Mrs IJ...
On your Volvo options, I've tried the new 2.0 D3 (D5 is a 2.4) in an automatic V70 and it's more than adequate, even in a big car. I've also tried the 1.6 D in a new S60 and found it remarkably good, but the S60 (and V60, which is far more about style than space) would feel cramped in back and boot after an Octavia, and it looks awfully expensive on paper, nice as the inside undoubtably is.
|
>> This continued prejudice against Skoda gets me down. Just more evidence that the human race
>> likes to ignore reality (see also the Debt Crisis).
It's not only depressing, but genuinely baffling. Apart from sharing most of their major components with VWs and Audis, it's not like Skodas are even cheap to buy any more. Good value, maybe, but at £18k+, a well specced Octavia is not a cheap car by any standards.
I was taxi'd in Copenhagen earlier in the week in a Superb 2.0TDI DSG. In my opinion, it wasn't lacking anything in finish, interior ambience or refinement compared with the E-class Mercedes I'd been in earlier that day. Always liked these cars (name aside). That trip only reinforced my view.
|
>> I was taxi'd in Copenhagen earlier in the week in a Superb 2.0TDI DSG. In
>> my opinion, it wasn't lacking anything in finish, interior ambience or refinement compared with the
>> E-class Mercedes I'd been in earlier that day. Always liked these cars (name aside). That
>> trip only reinforced my view.
>>
Completely agree, and I looked quite hard at that very spec of Superb estate when chosing my new car. Problem is, in that spec, with a few options, it's actually a pretty expensive car.
With the 170PS version of the engine and optioned up to a similar level as MB Avantgarde spec it was just under £30k list, or £27k after discount from drivethdeal (and didn't qualify for the VAT free offer at the time either; only the 2.0T petrol version did).
MB were doing a 220CDI speial edition thats basically an Avantgarde minus the xenons for £34k list or £30k after discount - only £3k difference in price, which I thought made the Skoda expensive.
Of course, I didn't buy the £30k MB, but that's man-maths for you ;-)
|
...I was taxi'd in Copenhagen earlier in the week...
That will probably tell a few on here who you are now working for. :)
|
>> It's not only depressing, but genuinely baffling.
A lot of people need to have a car that looks good on the road. Call it shallow, but it's the truth. I can't remember who it was but someone here said that Skoda's are deliberately poked with the ugly stick so not to show up their more expensive stablemates. I think the Octavia and Superb have a workmanlike appearance that would appeal to many people on here but not the majority.
I don't know how they made the Fabia looks so gawky after the first incarnation. I can only think it must be due to the above - that it will otherwise show up car's like the Polo.
|
|
If the Octavia was a nice looking car (neither hatchback or estate is in my opinion) I'd have had one without hesitation. Even with higher CO2 emissions than other VAG cars these would have been cheap for me on the company car scheme. I could have had the top of the range with 170PS diesel, sat nav etc. Alas a car I couldn't have because in the end I don't like the look of them.
|
|
I'd call you shallow, RTJ - but then I remembered that my principal objection to the Superb is the fussy graphics on the instruments. I think the estate, in the right colour, is rather striking, and certainly a better looking car than the equivalent Passat.
|
I could live with the look of the Superb except it was more expensive than the CC (note VW will not call it the CC when it is face lifted).
I recall you saying about the unclear dials - that would have put me off if I had a test-drive too. The VW ones are very clear. Not even cluttered with km/h.
I'm not sure about the regular Passat. If I'd gone for one of those it would have been an estate too.
|
>> I could live with the look of the Superb except it was more expensive than
>> the CC (note VW will not call it the CC when it is face lifted).
I think it's keeping the 'CC' tag but losing all reference to 'Passat'
www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/259920/
Peter
|
|
Oops. I meant that! It's the VW CC in America already.
|
>> Alas a
>> car I couldn't have because in the end I don't like the look of them.
I rest my case..
|
I wouldn't dream of wanting the current BMW 3 series for the same reason. Ugly thing. Not like BMWs of years ago.
Now Audi is losing it's way. The revised A4, A5 and A5 Sportback are not to my liking. They have ruined the front end with their new lights. And they all look the same! And I'm not sure the black on black interior ergonomics work.
|
>> Another thought - I think your current Octavia is a standard 1.9. If the Superb
>> is too big, and you can go up to £25,000, get an Octavia vRS (petrol
>> or diesel according to your annual mileage) which should be different enough from the current
>> one to keep SWMBO happy.
>> Not different enough - it will still have a Skoda badge.
Unfortunately she still thinks Skodas are the same as they were 20 years ago. Was difficult getting her to agree to this one and even after nearly 4 years she still doesn't see how good they are!
Ditch the missus and get a Superb Estate - plenty of space for sleeping in! :)
|
I seriously looked at the Skoda Superb Estate in Elegance trim. Despite lower list price, taking into account emissions it was more expensive per month in real terms than the Passat CC I got instead. And the Passat CC has some standard items that I didn't even spec for the Skoda.
Not sure of the styling of the Skoda. Especially in hatch/saloon format.
|
A few more to consider here, neighbour has a C5 estate so will ask him if he'd get another.
The Volvo would be either the D3 (depending on lease price) or the 1.6 if it doesn't feel to slow - after a 105hp Octavia it shouldn't.
Experience last time showed that a similar spec Golf/Octavia estate were the same lease cost, the same CO (same engine), the Skoda rode better, and the Skoda was over £1k less on list so tax was lower. In the end went for the saloon which beats Golf for space hands down.
I would like to change it (almost) like for like - not sure what the 1.6d would be like with the car loaded as it is when we head into or back from France - so would probably go for the 2.0d. Have the same concerns about the 1.6 in the V60.
Even the C5 saloon, big as it is, has a boot only 80% of the size of the Octavia - shows how well the Octavia is packaged. To match the boot space I need a much bigger car or an estate.
Will try and talk access to the ordering system out of the fleet manager (we are supposed to get 6 weeks for test drives and order with the new car delivery timed for the end of the sixth week - not really achievablel) If I can get access I can see what lease prices are.
One requirement I forgot to put on the original post is spare wheel of some kind - no runflats and no can of goo.
|
I noticed a new Passat in London yesterday. It was very good-looking, slick as a fish.
If yr missus is allowed to be such a fashion victim that she won't stand for a just-as-good-if-not-better-and-cheaper-to-boot Skoda, why don't you get one of those?
If I were you I would get your employers to agree to cough up for the running costs of a petrol V6 though. Surely that's what it's like for you subsidised-motoring chaps? I'm so envious.
:o}
|
>> If I were you I would get your employers to agree to c>> the running costs of a petrol V6 though. Surely that's what it's like for you
>> subsidised-motoring chaps? I'm so envious.
>>
>> :o}
The monthly tax bill wouldn't be far off the cost of leasing the car yourself.
A mate of mine had a V6 Mondeo when the CO2 based rules came in. it was costing him nearly £350 a month in tax excluding the tax on the fuel card.
|
>>> neighbour has a C5 estate so will ask him if he'd get another.
In many ways an Octavia was the only other car in the running when I was looking to get a C5 almost 2yrs ago. Of course the fact that the C5 doesn't come as a hatch meant that only an estate would do but I'd been running estates for over a decade so that was OK.
I looked into all aspects of both for a few weeks before going for the C5. Really the Octavia is the easier car to justify and like for many folks but there is no doubt it feels Golf based and the C5 is an obviously more refined and bigger feeling car.
The lease rates I have to hand seem to say an Octavia will be about £15 more a month for the nearest comparable model (1.6Hdi, C5 VTR+Nav vs Octavia Elegance) and then you have to pay nearly £1k extra for a full set of airbags and ESC on the Octavia. To fully equate the spec you then need to add £1600 to the Octavia for the integrated nav/phone system.
I regularly ride in both C5/Octavia and 2yrs on my impression remains.... the Octavia ticks so many of the family boxes, has a good resale and better dealers. But the C5 feels *special* and as a similarly priced 3yr lease with all costs covered by warranty I'd probably still go for the C5 again.
|
|
Will have to go and look at a C5.
|
|
Yes got to be worth it if only for a comparative experience... you might not like it at all. Make sure you get a run out though to understand its primary qualities.
|
Don't laugh but have you looked at the 2012 EcoFlex Insignia?
As you do plenty of miles, this is where this car comes into it's own BUT more importantly it is a 160hp car that falls under the 120 CO2 rule so BIK tax is only 13%. Very importnat for Co Car users!!!!!
With the exception of BMW, most sub 120 CO2 cars only have about 110hp.
Good luck
Last edited by: a900ss on Wed 16 Nov 11 at 16:47
|
>> Don't laugh but have you looked at the 2012 EcoFlex Insignia?
>>
Sorry but I did, I have read the reviews on HJs car by car . . . .
>> With the exception of BMW, most sub 120 CO2 cars only have about 110hp.
>>
Passat 2.0 tdi is 119g!
|
>> Passat 2.0 tdi is 119g!
>>
But that's "only" 140 bhp.
Re the OP's question, how about an S-Max or Grand C-Max?
|
>> Re the OP's question, how about an S-Max or Grand C-Max?
>>
>>
I am the OP and as there are normally only two of us they are way too big and I don't like the "people movers" - we ran a Scenic for three years about 10 years ago.
CO for the S-max in 2.0 TDI guise is 149g and the Grand C Max 129g, mpg combined are 50 and 57 respectively. For comparison current 4 year old Octavia is 130g and my target for Co is less than 120g.
They will be expensive compared to a saloon/estate.
|
>> falls under the 120 CO2 rule so BIK tax is only 13%
This year it is. But a diesel car emitting 119g/km CO2 will be 17% next year. To get down to 13% it needs to emit less than 100g/km CO2 for tax year 201/2013. The BMW 320d ED falls into the 15% BIK rate next year.
|
I have access to the ordering system now so can see what the leasee cost of the cars would be.
Some interesting comparisons - taking into account tax and fuel for 25k miles (I pay for all private fuel)
1.6 TDi Octavia (Equivalent as 1.9 has gone ) is £10 more than the current car despite CO2 being 119g instead of 130g.
Skoda Superb 2.0 TDI - would cost me £132 a month more - as would a BMW 520 2.0D Efficient Dynamics . . . . . . BMW lease is higher but tax bill (Superb is 143g - compared to Passat with 119g) and projected fuel cost is lower, tempting but £132 a month saved would pay for a week away somewhere nice for the two of us.
Mercedes E200 TDI SE is £211 more than the Octavia, the same cost as the E220 so who would have a 200.
Oddly A Citroen C5 VTR+ 160 is £43 more per month than the 2.0 Passat sport - Citroen residuals over 4 years must be awful.
Passat 2.0 TDI Sport (With a few options) is the current favorite at £76 more than the Octavia, will try a 1.6 and see if I could live with it, wary of such a large car with a small engine but with the same spec it is £28/month less than the 2.0.
Still tempted by another Octavia but probably the 2.0 TDi, will see how it goes down with SWMBO!
|
|
All these Mondeo drivers must be on Ford only schemes, overall a 2.0 TDI Ghia X is £20 MORE than the 520!
|
>> I have access to the ordering system now so can see what the leasee cost
>> of the cars would be.
>>
>> Some interesting comparisons - taking into account tax and fuel for 25k miles (I pay
>> for all private fuel)
>>
>> 1.6 TDi Octavia (Equivalent as 1.9 has gone ) is £10 more than the current
>> car despite CO2 being 119g instead of 130g.
>>
Bit underpowered as a 1.6TDi maybe ?
>> Skoda Superb 2.0 TDI - would cost me £132 a month more - as would
>> a BMW 520 2.0D Efficient Dynamics . . . . . . BMW lease is
>> higher but tax bill (Superb is 143g - compared to Passat with 119g) and projected
>> fuel cost is lower, tempting but £132 a month saved would pay for a week
>> away somewhere nice for the two of us.
>>
The 520ED is high on my list for my next company car (some way off since I'm not in the UK at the moment) - has a very attractive 2 year lease cost on my employer's scheme at the moment
I like the Superb Estate and if I were to opt-out and make a private purchase would strongly consider it (nearly new), but the BMW makes such a strong case as a lease car.
>> Mercedes E200 TDI SE is £211 more than the Octavia, the same cost as the
>> E220 so who would have a 200.
>>
Or even an E250D....
>> Oddly A Citroen C5 VTR+ 160 is £43 more per month than the 2.0 Passat
>> sport - Citroen residuals over 4 years must be awful.
>>
Yes, always a problem with Citroen / Fiat / Alfa and their ilk
>> Passat 2.0 TDI Sport (With a few options) is the current favorite at £76 more
>> than the Octavia, will try a 1.6 and see if I could live with it,
>> wary of such a large car with a small engine but with the same spec
>> it is £28/month less than the 2.0.
>>
Suspect the 1.6TDi is underpowered, the 2.0TDi Sport is nicely equipped IMHO and the 170PS version isn't the thirsty old dog the old 170PD was I'm told.
>> Still tempted by another Octavia but probably the 2.0 TDi, will see how it goes
>> down with SWMBO!
>>
The devil you know, but with a 520ED in reach you'd be slumming it....
You're right about the Mondeo - the S-Max looks like a good lease car on my scheme though. again a Mondeo (estate) would be on my list for a private (nearly new) purchase if I were to opt out.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 24 Nov 11 at 09:15
|
So do I get it right, Passat 2.0 TDI Sport is + £76 and a BMW 520 2.0D Efficient Dynamics is + £132 so only £56 more than the Passat?
The BMW has got to be the best value, though could you have a 520dSE or the new stonking 4 cyl 525d? Or a 320dSE or ED?
|
>>
>> So do I get it right, Passat 2.0 TDI Sport is + £76 and a
>> BMW 520 2.0D Efficient Dynamics is + £132 so only £56 more than the Passat?
>>
>> The BMW has got to be the best value, though could you have a 520dSE
>> or the new stonking 4 cyl 525d? Or a 320dSE or ED?
>>
>>
Yes - correct - The 520 benefits from the lower emissions and that I am a 40% taxpayer - although the lease is higher it is fixed for the term, tax rates aren't but they are not likely to move away from CO based taxing so it si unlikely to lose its advantage. If I was a 20% taxpayer the BMW would lose some of its advantage. The 320 is too small (sat in one again yesterday) and the other BMWs don't share the same ultra low CO level as the 520 ED model.
I am concerned about the 1.6 Passat, booking demonstrator and will see. The 520 would mean committing July's payrise (if there is one) to the increased car cost and not sure I want to do that. If I book a demonstrator she will make the decision for me . . . so I should book one!
Tempting.
But do I want runflats?
Last edited by: IJWS14 on Fri 25 Nov 11 at 08:52
|
Work out how many more active / working years you have left. Work out what % age of those will be occupied by your new car. Decide if that's time you want to spend in a 1.6 Passat or a 5 series...
:-)
|
Something else to consider is how the BIK bands change next year. A car emitting less than 120g/km CO2 this year is in the bottom bracket. So for a diesel that's 13%. But next April this changes and 119g/km of CO2 is a 17% rate. A bit of a jump.
I factored this in when I got the Passat CC. This year it's 18%. Next it's 19%. If I'd got say an A4 2.0 TDie it would jump from 13% to 17% for BIK.
|
>> But do I want runflats?
Depends on what the alternative is.
If it's a full-size spare, no contest.
If it's a "space saver", arguable.
If it's a can of squirty crud, runflats are a no-brainer.
|
>> Depends on what the alternative is.
Not only is the spare in the Passat a full size. It's also an alloy wheel the same as all of the others. In my case an 18" wheel.
|
>> >> But do I want runflats?
>>
>> Depends on what the alternative is.
>> If it's a full-size spare, no contest.
>> If it's a "space saver", arguable.
>> If it's a can of squirty crud, runflats are a no-brainer.
>>
Not familiar with them but how far could I run on a runflat?
On the other question I expect to work for another 18-20 years (to 70ish) and will have the car for 4 years (3 years ups the price, 2 years drops it)
|
>> 100 miles @ 55mph ish.
>>
Oh . . . less than I thought. Not good if I get a puncture in the middle of France on a Sunday and we have another 400 miles to go for a ferry!
At least with a space saver we could bumble along at 50mph!
|
>> At least with a space saver we could bumble along at 50mph!
>>
And where would you put the FULL SIZE wheel that the space saver replaces, if you have a boot full of holiday luggage?
I don't like runflats either, but space savers disappoint me as well. I much prefer a real full size spare.
Last edited by: Londoner on Wed 30 Nov 11 at 17:08
|
>> I don't like runflats either, but space savers disappoint me as well. I much prefer a real full size spare.
Which is why I like the full size alloy spare in my car. And space in the middle of the spare in the underfloor compartment to store items too. :-) Maybe best of all would be a full size spare and a can of go in case you get two flats simultaneously?
|
Makes me think, my last 4 company cars have been :
Octavia - 3 3/4 years, 98k miles, no punctures to date, alloy spare to match the wheels.
Honda - 4 years, 128k miles, one puncture, space saver and can of goo.
Passat - 4 years, 96k miles , no punctures, alloy spare to match the wheels
Vectra - 2 years, 43k miles, one puncture, steel spare to match the wheels.
In the same time the wife has had 2 punctures and 2 blistered tyres in about 50k miles and daughter has had one blistered tyre in about 25k miles.
Maybe it is their driving style or maybe their preference for lower profile tyres.
Maybe runflats are worth the risk - or is that the man-maths at work?
|
I had run-flats on a 330D SE Touring, sensible 225x45 R17s rather than blingy ones, it rode better than an S-Line Audi A4 Avant IMHO, they wore pretty well (but I wasn't paying) and gripped OK even in the snow. I never got a puncture - in fact I've only had one puncture in perhaps 400K miles of driving. As I occasionally towed a bike and camping trailer I did ponder what might happen if I got a rear puncture whilst towing but this eventuality never occurred.
IMHO run-flats of sensible proportions are fine these days - possibly better than a can of gunk and obviously less effective than a full size or temporary spare.
Oh - and get the 520d ED, all the other options are inferior (however good they might be) and you only live once.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 1 Dec 11 at 13:42
|
>> IMHO run-flats of sensible proportions are fine these days - possibly better than a can
>> of gunk and obviously less effective than a full size or temporary spare.
>>
Tend to agree, we have Bridgestone Runflats on both 1'ers, the 120i has done 8k on the currrent set of 205/50-17s and rides well, the current rears are half worn and the fronts look pretty new. The 123d has 215/40-18(f) and 245/35-18(r) and has done 14k from new with a good 5k left in them.
>> Oh - and get the 520d ED, all the other options are inferior (however good
>> they might be) and you only live once.
>>
Tend to agree - though would look at non ED options such as the new 4 cyl 525d, me being willing to pay a little more for the driving experience.
|
+1 for Bridgestone Runflats
Very good tyres. Better in every way than the Continental Runflats that came with the car as new. (But then, I've never had a good experience with Continental tyres)
|
Looked at the cost of a 320 ED and the lease company web-site told me the monthly tax was MORE than the 520 ED . . . . .
Checked on other web-sites and the lease company's calculator is wrong - have to work theough the numbers again . . . . .
And the 520 is a little dearer than the lease company claim it to be!
|
>> Looked at the cost of a 320 ED and the lease company web-site told me the monthly tax
>> was MORE than the 520 ED . . . . .
Well that lease company was obviously wrong. 320ED is cheaper. 320ED emissions are lower. Therefore BIK has to be lower. It cannot be more than a 520ED.
|
>> >> Looked at the cost of a 320 ED and the lease company web-site told
>> me the monthly tax
>> >> was MORE than the 520 ED . . . . .
>>
>> Well that lease company was obviously wrong. 320ED is cheaper. 320ED emissions are lower. Therefore
>> BIK has to be lower. It cannot be more than a 520ED.
>>
>>
My thoughts exactly - turns out their calculator takes into account the effect of my part of the lease contribution (520 means buying up) and that pushes the BIK tax down.
|
>> pushes the BIK tax down.
If you pay towards the lease cost, it comes out of salary before tax. But that doesn't change the BIK rate. When I calculated the cost of my last three company cars when deciding, I worked out exactly what the costs were using BIK, tax thresholds, pension contributions etc. So my Passat CC is costing in real terms about £50/month more than the Mazda6.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 7 Dec 11 at 10:59
|
>> >> pushes the BIK tax down.
>>
>> If you pay towards the lease cost, it comes out of salary before tax. But
>> that doesn't change the BIK rate.
If you're an employee then actually I think that it does, you'll see that your contributions towards the lease are generally reported as being deducted from the BIK value on the P11D, the net effect is of course the same.
You cannot judge which car to choose on a single dimension (BIK, lease cost, fuel economy, features, lease duration). In the end I just choose the car I want to drive and balance this against the lease duration and have to satisfy myself that I can afford it.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 8 Dec 11 at 05:07
|
Yes, if you are an employee it does.
Cost is one factor, the car is another, see lots of people who pick a car based on lease and are surprised by how much tax they pay on it.
|
To update the thread passat 2.0 TDi SE saloon ordered yesterday.
Enough space, engine big enough (1.6 diesel isn't - what is the point of getting a diesel if you ahve to change gear all the time and it drinks fuel) and should be cheaper overall than the outgoing Octavia, but not as cheap (but not far off) as a 2.0TDi Octavia (Wary even of the 1.6 diesel n the Octavia and a spare is an extra.)
SWMBO turned her nose up at either an Insignia or an Avensis. No spares in the BMWs (Full size alloy in the Passat) and everything else means too much CO and too much tax.
|
Octavia replacement - Zero
