Skoda Superb or BMW 520d?

NewApproach

Which would ye pick:

Skoda Superb 2.0 TDI 170 DSG Elegance for €35560

or

BMW 520d SE Auto for €44k

Spec on each is pretty similar. Tax and fuel costs are lower on the BMW.

mickdw

If you can buy the BMW, why even consider the Skoda. I sure the increased resale on the BMW will make it very close on overall cost too

Drummerboy08

NewApproach wrote: »

Tax and fuel costs are lower on the BMW.

You seem to be forgetting one thing.......The 9k difference in price!

pajero12

NewApproach wrote: »

Which would ye pick:

Skoda Superb 2.0 TDI 170 DSG Elegance for €35560

or

BMW 520d SE Auto for €44k

Spec on each is pretty similar. Tax and fuel costs are lower on the BMW.

I've a feeling I know where this is gonna go!!!:D
I'd definately go for the superb!!

ronaneire

BMW does it for me hands down.

-Corkie-

Same here. That seems very dear for the skoda. I thought they were a lot cheaper than that...

Drummerboy08

Lads we're not comparing apples with apples here. It's like comparing a Range Rover to a Suzuki Vitara.

If you want a very nice, comfortable car that wont cost a fortune to buy, and should have a decent residual, then the Skoda is the way to go. Another one to look at here is an Insignia 2.0CDTi 160 Elite Auto.

If you want an executive car that is the best in its class, go for the BMW.

kindalen

presume this will be paid for by work? resale not an issue?

frank gooding

absolute top of the range skoda versus nearly bottom of the range 5 series.

The comes with it's own echo space of the Superb has to be worth the extra 9 grand in your back pocket.

Badge snobbery is going to be a huge pull towards the BMW mind.

NewApproach

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting one thing.......The 9k difference in price!

No, what I'm asking is which would ye consider to be the better buy when the price is taken into account?

-Corkie- wrote: »

Same here. That seems very dear for the skoda. I thought they were a lot cheaper than that...

This is the highest spec model. They start from €25k afaik.

kindalen wrote: »

presume this will be paid for by work? resale not an issue?

No privately, resale may or may not be an issue depending on the length of ownership.

Drummerboy08

NewApproach wrote: »

No, what I'm asking is which would ye consider to be the better buy when the price is taken into account?

Well, lets look at it this way.

The Skoda is 9k cheaper at the outset. The difference in fuel costs will be minimal. Dont go by the manufacturer's figures because they are always wrong.

There wont be a massive amount in the difference of the residual values in 3 years time IMO. I think the skoda will be the slightly better buy, but ut all comes down to what you want.

kindalen

i would take both of them for a weekend each to fully test which one suits you best, both of them are good buys.
good luck.

Absurdum

It depends on your circumstances imo. If you were borrowing some or all of the money then the Superb probably makes more sense. I'd also imagine that it is more comfortable than the BMW given the spec on each, which will be important if long distances is a factor. The badge isn't worth an extra 9k imo.

edit: missed the bit about them being similar spec so that might sway it the other way for me :pac:

maddness

I drive a superb elegance 170 and its great. Mind you I would take a new 520d over it in a heartbeat.

SeanCF1

Skoda for me all the way, great car, it's definately underrated and the rear leg room is massive

carsfan

I went through this dilemma a few months back and went for the new 520d in the end.
The Skoda is a lovely car and a nice drive but the Bmw really does feel from a class above in spite of the fact there are more toys in the Superb.
I also think that a top spec Skoda will be less desirable come trade in time than the 5 series.
I have already seen more new model 520d's than elegance spec Superbs. the Skoda dealer I dealt with told me that the Superb170dsg elegance would make up a tiny proportion of sales,would be seen as a niche model in the range and would therefore lose a lot more of its value than a model lower down the range. Most buyers want the less powerful engine with a manual gearbox whereas the BMW is most popular as an auto.If you are going to keep the car along time, I suppose this matters little and the Superb is a great car.
As a drivers car the BMW felt better but more room for passengers in the Skoda.

DULLAHAN2

Why Dont you give the model of each car you are thinking of buying a test drive asking yourself which one you prefer to drive? igonoring the make of the car.

Eric Cartman

the wrong wheels drive on the skoda

blingrhino

351 people in august can`t be wrong-how many skodas!

-Chris-

My vote is for 520d.

Want a poll, OP?

Drummerboy08

-Chris- wrote: »

My vote is for 520d.

Want a poll, OP?

Everyone is going to vote for the 520 Chris! Its like asking someone if they want the good looking blonde, or the fugly red head! Or the Nissan Tiida over a Ferrari!

There can only be one winner here, and thats the 5 series. Why? Because its a class above (in more than one way) the Skoda. The Skoda is a great car, but it isnt fair to compare it side by side to the 5.

If the thread title was "Skoda Superb vs Opel Insignia" or "BMW 5 series vs Merc E class" then it would make sense. No offence to you OP, I just dont understand why or how you have it narrowed to these two cars.

-Chris-

Do you really think the two cars will have similar RVs?

rebel.ranter

I think the current Superb is ugly to be honest, that's one of a few reasons why I'd plum for the BMW.
But there will be far more 520d around than Superb...

Idbatterim

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bmw-the-top-seller-as-new-car-sales-soar-50pc-2321375.html

Drummerboy08

-Chris- wrote: »

Do you really think the two cars will have similar RVs?

The BMW will be worth more say in 3 years time with 90k on the clock, but will it be worth the difference of the two purchase prices more? I dont think so. That's why I think the Skoda is "a better buy". It wont depreciate as much as the BMW. there may be 3/4k in the difference, ut not the 8 or 9k extra it costs to buy the BMW in the first place.

-Chris-

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

The BMW will be worth more say in 3 years time with 90k on the clock, but will it be worth the difference of the two purchase prices more? I dont think so. That's why I think the Skoda is "a better buy". It wont depreciate as much as the BMW. there may be 3/4k in the difference, ut not the 8 or 9k extra it costs to buy the BMW in the first place.

If there's 8K difference in purchase price and 4k difference in RV, I'd be happy to pay the 4k extra to have the 5er over the Skoda.

Drummerboy08

-Chris- wrote: »

If there's 8K difference in purchase price and 4k difference in RV, I'd be happy to pay the 4k extra to have the 5er over the Skoda.

Aye I'd agree with you, but thats a personal choice if you get me i.e. if you want to spend the extra 4/5k then do it, but if your trying to be smart about your money and want a car with all the toys then the Skoda is yer man.

-Chris-

Yup, but you have to pay for a car that makes you feel good. Otherwise we'd all be in Octavias and there'd be no need for Superbs or 5ers.

It's more than just a cerebral decision, and sometimes you have to pay a price for that.

Drummerboy08

-Chris- wrote: »

Yup, but you have to pay for a car that makes you feel good. Otherwise we'd all be in Octavias and there'd be no need for Superbs or 5ers.

It's more than just a cerebral decision, and sometimes you have to pay a price for that.

Yeah, I hears ya. Explain it to the masses who buy Toyota's though.

unkel

The value for money in the Superb is there in the bottom of the range, not in the top. A base model petrol or diesel is €24k list price. That is superb value for money

A high end one will depreciate a lot more (relatively) compared to a low end (but similar spec) BMW 5-series. To take Chris' figures, the BMW would only cost a grand extra per year in depreciation / tax. You'd have to be insane to not spend that little extra money to get the far superior BMW.

mickdw

I think this is an interesting comparison compared to the usual merc vs bmw etc. It is of interest as the bmw has moved very very close to the price of the typical saloon of a few years ago whereas the skoda while well priced hasnt moved anything like the amount bmw prices have. This then opens up a reasonable price comparison between 2 vastly different car given the better resale on the bmw. I think alot of people would pay 4k for the bmw over the skoda which is the likely overall extra cost when resale is taken into account of 3 years approx. Fair enough, the base model superb is in a different ball game and wouldnt be considered here but for me, to pay 34k for a superb is madness & IMO the bmw resale may be stronger than suggested here and the overall difference may be even less than 4k.

-Chris-

It's madness to think that (iirc) the old 5 series started at €55k, and would have been closer to €60k with a similar spec (leather & bluetooth) to the new model.

galwaytt

frank gooding wrote: »

absolute top of the range skoda versus nearly bottom of the range 5 series.

The comes with it's own echo space of the Superb has to be worth the extra 9 grand in your back pocket.

Badge snobbery is going to be a huge pull towards the BMW mind.

Indeed: do people want the actual features etc, or the just the badge ?

rebel.ranter wrote: »

I think the current Superb is ugly to be honest, that's one of a few reasons why I'd plum for the BMW.
But there will be far more 520d around than Superb...

It sure is ugly, no doubt about it. But hold on, when Bangle & Co launched the flame edge styling, everyone said the same thing about BeeEmm's: now all of a sudden it's a design classic ? Indeed it is, but it took 10 yrs of evolution, and the un-Bangling of a lot of it, to get there.....

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

The BMW will be worth more say in 3 years time with 90k on the clock, but will it be worth the difference of the two purchase prices more? I dont think so. That's why I think the Skoda is "a better buy". It wont depreciate as much as the BMW. there may be 3/4k in the difference, ut not the 8 or 9k extra it costs to buy the BMW in the first place.

Don't forget the interest on the finance on the extra 9k as well.......

-Chris- wrote: »

If there's 8K difference in purchase price and 4k difference in RV, I'd be happy to pay the 4k extra to have the 5er over the Skoda.

You're assuming the Skoda has no merit. Faced in a few years with a poverty spec BeeEmm or a well spec'd Superb, I think you'll find no shortage of buyers for the Superb, tbh.

unkel wrote: »

The value for money in the Superb is there in the bottom of the range, not in the top. A base model petrol or diesel is €24k list price. That is superb value for money

A high end one will depreciate a lot more (relatively) compared to a low end (but similar spec) BMW 5-series. To take Chris' figures, the BMW would only cost a grand extra per year in depreciation / tax. You'd have to be insane to not spend that little extra money to get the far superior BMW.

'Far Superior' (sic). Says who ?

mickdw wrote: »

I think this is an interesting comparison compared to the usual merc vs bmw etc. It is of interest as the bmw has moved very very close to the price of the typical saloon of a few years ago whereas the skoda while well priced hasnt moved anything like the amount bmw prices have. This then opens up a reasonable price comparison between 2 vastly different car given the better resale on the bmw. I think alot of people would pay 4k for the bmw over the skoda which is the likely overall extra cost when resale is taken into account of 3 years approx. Fair enough, the base model superb is in a different ball game and wouldnt be considered here but for me, to pay 34k for a superb is madness & IMO the bmw resale may be stronger than suggested here and the overall difference may be even less than 4k.

I think the fact that people are debating, and the OP considering, a Skoda (of any spec), against a BeeEmm is proof positive the the Skoda has now made it's presence felt, and that it's quality is now a very definitive positive asset to it's tried'n'tested (aka simple), mechanicals. That a Merc isn't on the list just goes to show you that Merc have slipped, and severly so.

So, this being the case, you can't shout the Skoda is a poor relation to anything - it's a proven, legitimate quality choice.

All that's colouring this debate, is spec. Paddy spec BeeEmm vs Super spec Superb. Either compare base, or top, models of each, other wise you're really not comparing apples with apples.


Now, having said all that: I actually sat ina 6 week old Superb today, for the first time, and frankly, I was gobsmacked. The quality of the fittings, dash, equip -not to mention the very clever 'is it a boot or is it a hatchback'. It wasn't top spec, but what the guy got for his 26k was truly amazing. In fact, at that spec level, it's more a comparison for the 5 series we're talking here. So, if the price difference is now 17k, well then, I'm sorry, but the Skoda has no competition.

And, for comparison, he traded a high spec 06 Octavia Estate w/DSG. In the 4 years, and with high mileage (rep), it lost 4k/year. Imho, that's not outrageous, and I can't see the BeeEmm losing any less......

VolvoMan

-Chris- wrote: »

It's madness to think that (iirc) the old 5 series started at €55k, and would have been closer to €60k with a similar spec (leather & bluetooth) to the new model.

It's the fact that cars in that class used to be such a rip-off in this country makes people think they are suddenly good value now that they're priced at what they should be.

With regard to the 520d and the Superb; nine grand is not to be sneezed at.

-Chris-

galwaytt wrote: »

You're assuming the Skoda has no merit. Faced in a few years with a poverty spec BeeEmm or a well spec'd Superb, I think you'll find no shortage of buyers for the Superb, tbh.

I definitely see merit in the Skoda. I put out a decently spec'd Superb estate recently and the spec, and fit & finish, are surprisingly excellent.

I'd still choose the 520d, but that's just a personal choice.

VolvoMan wrote: »

It's the fact that cars in that class used to be such a rip-off in this country makes people think they are suddenly good value now that they're priced at what they should be.

With regard to the 520d and the Superb; nine grand is not to be sneezed at.

But we're expecting it to be four grand, which is probably more palatable.

unkel

galwaytt wrote: »

'Far Superior' (sic). Says who ?

Everybody, except you

galwaytt

unkel wrote: »

Everybody, except you

LOL, I know, but I must fight the Good Fight. We all KNOW Skoda's are........Superb.....(sic) :rolleyes:...




I'll get my coat.......

galwaytt

VolvoMan wrote: »

...; nine grand is not to be sneezed at.

...indeed: that'd buy you a lovely other car as well. Possibly even a Porsche 968.....

unkel

galwaytt wrote: »

LOL, I know, but I must fight the Good Fight.

The Good Fight is recommending a base 24k Superb over a base 24k Avensis

BrianD3

IMO a 4wd, equipment laden Superb could offer an alternative to the 520d - if the Superb wasn't so dog ugly. I am looking at cars in both the Mondeo class and the 5 series class and I'd nearly rule out the Superb straightaway due to its looks. Don't like the interior styling either.

BTW I also think the new E class is horrid.

Anyway back to the 520d, its not as if the 5 series is poverty spec these days. The days of BMW selling 518is with no radios are long gone

unkel

BrianD3 wrote: »

The days of BMW selling 518is with no radios are long gone

The decent spec BMWs are only here since BMW bought back the distributorship in 2003!

But yeah, as others have said, it is pretty remarkable that a high spec BMW is now not much more expensive than a non-executive competitor with similar spec. 10 years ago a low spec BMW would have been relatively much more expensive than the same competitor. I guess it's mainly to do with the ultra low CO2 emissions of the BMW diesels resulting in very low VRT, reflected directly in the list price.

GTE

Im ignorant of the prices of the models in relation to eachother but:

To me the Skoda is fighting its corner well (even if it doesnt win against the BMW by the majority in this thread). So what does that say about the BMW spec equivalent Audi vs the Skoda?

Are we looking a situation that soon, high spec Skodas will piss all over low spec BMW, Merc and Audi's? Ok, we have looks which are entirely subjective but spec should be a more objective comparison.

Ill admit that my first car is a VW so all this sentimental value would lean me towards the Skoda if the BMW was really that spec bare. I dont know the specifics of what spec is on what.

Very interesting thread though.

unkel

bbk wrote: »

Are we looking a situation that soon, high spec Skodas will piss all over low spec BMW

Perhaps you should read the thread again

VolvoMan

Nobody has mentioned yet the fact that you can get a fully loaded Superb 3.6 V6 4X4 with DSG for the same price as a 520d. I know it might cost five or six times more to tax annually, but it's food for thought.

-Chris-

VolvoMan wrote: »

I know it might cost five or six times more to tax annually, but it's food for thought.

I can hear the collective sphincters of the Irish car buying public tightening in unison. :eek:

It's a lovely thought though... :D

R.O.R

I'm a huge fan of the Superb, and would take one in a heartbeat over an A6 as it's much better value for money. Even the pig ugly styling doesn't put me off because of the substance of the car over styling.

I had a Superb 170 (manual) for a week and put close to 1,000km on and it is one of the most comfortable cars I've ever driven for tudging up and down motorways. I was also getting pretty amazing fuel consumption figures from it (4.7L/100km). The specification of the Elegance is quite a bit higher than the equivalent BMW, but it's mainly toys and not essentials. Heated rear seats, Sat Nav and self parking are good to show off to the guys down the golf club, but Climate Control, Leather and Bluetooth are the things that really matter - and these are standard in the 5 Series.

Personally, I'd take the 5 series. Standard seats in BMW's generally aren't as comfy as they are in the Superb, but I've not been in a standard 5 Series for long enough to really know. Took a high spec 520d to Wexford just after launch, but that had the memory seats with lumbar support so was pretty good. Might be worth the €360 for the lumbar support.

I do think the DSG box won't help the resale value on the Superb, simply due to the tax class it puts it in to.

Quick figures suggest it will cost roughly €95 a month more to run the BMW, not taking fuel or insurance in to account, over 3yrs / 90,000km. Depreciation, servicing, tax, tyres all included in the difference though.

pajo1981

I too would take a superb over an A6, but over what is possibly the greatest car BMW have ever put out (M cars aside) - hell no!

Tea 1000

Anyone who thinks a nearly 36k Superb will hold it's value clearly doesn't know the car industry too well! As anyone knows, extras hold little if any of their original cost after 3 years. I'd estimate that you'd be doing well to get €12k for that Superb in 3 years, where as 3 year old 520d's are on carzone for between 22k and 28k. In Skoda terms, the higher end Superbs aren't fantastic value, practically the same price as a Highline Passat, and like it or not, VW's hold their value better due to brand image.
I also laugh at the boards typical and predictable comments, how can a Passat be an absolutely crap car, yet a Skoda with the same engine, parts and chassis with just over 3 inches extra be "absolutely massive", "comes with an echo", "limo-like refinement", "best value car on the market" despite an elegance being similar in price to a highline, with maybe built-in sat nav and 3 inches being the only difference?
The Superb is a great car, don't get me wrong, but it's only more spacious than the Passat, it's not any better. It comes with more equipment as standard, and actually the interior is a little fresher looking, but lets not overstate things here.
The 5-series looks, feels and is a class above. It feels it to sit in, it feels it to drive, and it looks it from outside too. It has a much better chassis, a better engine, much nicer looking, better residuals, and lets face it - calling it a bog standard model is a bit pathetic, what is it actually lacking that you'd need over the Superb?

If value and comfort is your top priorities, then I'd go for the Superb, but probably in lower than elegance spec, cause at 35.5k it's too dear. If you want a better chassis and a car from a class above, then get the 5-series.
Also I wouldn't discount the E-Class, it's an excellent car.
This Superb worshiping is getting tiresome. Great car yes, but you'd swear it's motoring perfection by reading these pages, pages from so-called enthusiasts.

Henry Ford III

€36k is an awful lot of wedge to be shelling out for any Skoda.

p.s. I realise it's (Superb) a decent motor btw.

R.O.R

Probably best not to mention the €38,500 Superb I've on order for January then............

Zonda999

Its interesting really, threads like this prove that cars in the "compact executive" class(3 series, A4, C Class etc..) have nearly been squeezed out of the market!

I'm a huge Skoda fan indeed but in this scenario i find it hard to recommend the Superb considering you have the resources to get the 5'er