Skoda Octavia 1.6 TDI DSG vs Toyota Auris 1.6 multidrive review/comparison

Leonard Hofstadter

I meant to get around to this ages ago, but I haven't had the time!

I hope I'll still be allowed post on boards for my tardiness in 'reviewing' the Octavia, a whole two weeks after I drove it, it is Motor's most talked about and favourite car after all:D (though I notice there's far less mention of supposedly wonderful the Octavia is ever since Vectra told us he was getting a Passat:p:p). But I don't know if you've noticed, but we have had some Rugby World Cup matches, and watching that clearly wins out over offering my thoughts on a pair of family hatchbacks.

I've had the 'pleasure' of driving both of these cars over the past few months. I had them each for a weekend.

In keeping with the fact that these are boring, mundane cars, I have made my review boring and mundane and have compared them across a number of categories, What Car? style:D, and given my conclusions at the end.

Both were 2013 cars and UK spec. Both are current model cars, so the current model Auris (rather than the Godawful original - though of course Toyota have facelifted it recently) and the MQB platform Octavia. I don't think this matters for the Octavia, but I'm not sure if Toyota still do special suspension settings for Ireland any more, so it may be the case that what I have to say about the ride and handling aren't strictly relevant to Ireland if Toyota still go to the trouble of fitting the rough road pack for Irish cars. The Auris was an Icon model, equivalent to Luna in Ireland I think. The Octavia was an SE, which is close to a Style model in Ireland.

Two things annoyed me about both cars, the first was the fact that despite not being bottom of the range cars and UK rather than Irish spec, neither had cruise control, an auto-dimming rear view mirror, or rain sensing wipers. Ironically, the Irish Octavia equivalent, the Style, does have all three, just goes to show that not everything in Ireland has lower equipment than the UK equivalent (though the entry level UK car is far better equipped than the Irish equivalent). While having rain sensing wipers isn't the end of the world (I find they tend not to do what I want them to do anyway), but as anyone who does long distance driving or night driving knows, not having cruise control or an auto-dimming rear view mirror is a killer, especially as both cars were automatics (I will come back to this later).

Styling:
For me, the Octavia is the better looking, both inside and out. I don't know why but I prefer the look of it, I think the problem with the Toyota is it looks all wrong at the rear. The front and side of it look fine.

Space and practicality:
As we all know, the Octavia has a boot big enough to house its own planet:D. But there is acres of space inside, front and back. The Auris is tiny by comparison, but for the standards of this class, it's hardly uncompetitive in this area.

Interior
Well the good news is that the Auris is an enormous improvement compared to its predecessor (though that wouldn't be hard, because the old car had one of the worst interiors I've ever sampled). There are cheap plastics and in true 90s Toyota style, it has an old fashioned digital clock. Both cars have touch screen radios, call me old fashioned but I'd actually prefer buttons. I found the touch screen in the Skoda in particular very distracting when I was driving. Fortunately the Skoda has a button on the wiper stalk which makes it easier to change stations. The Toyota had a multifunction steering wheel so all the important things you'd want to do, such as changing the radio station, volume etc were simple and therefore the touch screen system was nowhere near as irritable. Oddly despite being a mid spec car, the Skoda didn't have a multifunction steering wheel either. What is excellent about the Toyota though is the rear view camera, my car had such a feature, it's absolutely fantastic, of course a proper driver shouldn't need one (that's what mirrors are for) but I really enjoyed it and it makes parking child's play. The Skoda has fantastic seats, I did 400 miles in one day and my back wasn't sore afterwards. I have a preference for hard Germanic seats in cars. The Toyota does not have such good seats, something I've found with various Toyotas over the years. I found steering wheel angle of the Skoda a bit funny, a weird observation I know, but it kind of felt like a bus driver's angle rather than point out straight in front of you. Not a major issue admittedly, but it was something I noticed initially, I got used to it fairly quickly and it stopped bothering me after a short while. The Octavia has better side visibility, trying to pull out from a parking spot is easier because of this. The Auris has a window behind the rear windows, but because they are angled upwards rather than downwards, they're all but useless.

Engines:
The Octavia had the 1.6 TDI engien with 103 bhp, while the Toyota has the 1.6 Valvematic engine developing 130 bhp. As you'd expect, the Toyota was a LOT quicker, you'd really notice it when you tried to engage kickdown, the Skoda went a bit faster whereas the Toyota shot off by comparison. I've driven 1.6 TDI before in a Passat BMT, and in fairness to the Skoda, the engine is not anything like as bad as it was in that car, partly because it has somewhat more sensible gearing (2200 rpm at 120 in top, compared to just under 2000 rpm in the Passat in top) but also because it's a lighter car. It's adequate, nothing more.

The Toyota has plenty of oomph, it doesn't feel as quick as you might expect a small car with 130 bhp to be, but it is much better than the Skoda. I blame the CVT Multidrive gearbox for the fact that it isn't faster, it is without a shadow of a doubt the world's worst gearbox. It's utterly horrible. No wonder whenever car magazines test Lexus hybrids or Toyota hybrids they always say they're horrible to drive! I totally believe it now. It's not contrary to what I used to think a conspiracy against hybrids in favour of smellier diesels. The gearbox ruins the car. I ended up putting it in manual mode (it has flappy paddles, which is just as well) and it was a far more agreeable thing to drive, but that rather defeats the point of having an automatic in the first place.

The Skoda's DSG gearbox was vastly superior to the horrible Multidrive Toyota gearbox, one other nice thing about the Skoda's system is that because it is essentially a manual gearbox underneath the car holds onto the revs when slowing down, which aids engine braking. It had the added bonus of disguising the narrow power band that is typical of diesels (though having driven this engine in a manual Passat before, what little bit of power there is present is spread over a reasonably wide range) and the other multitude of sins that are part of the diesel driving experience. Despite the lack of power, I actually quite liked this engine and gearbox combination, the gearbox really gels with the car, with a couple of exceptions. The auto start and stop system didn't work as well as I'd hoped, once or twice it caught me out and the car didn't restart when I expected it to. The other problem with the gearbox is it tended to pull away in second (rather than first) when in D, only putting it into Sport made it pull away in first, but then on a motorway Sport mode would not select 7th gear no matter how gentle you were with it. Around town the DSG lacks the smoothness of a true auto, but all in all I'd take it over a manual diesel any day of the week, and twice over a CVT box. In fact, so infuriating did I find the multidrive, I'd much rather the diesel Octy's engine and gearbox to the Toyota (even though it's petrol and is a lot faster) - so there you have it, I've found two mundane cars where given the choice I'd prefer the diesel:D:eek:.

Ride and handling:
One of the interesting things about the Skoda (compared to its predecessor) is that the suspension has very much taken a step backwards, with non independent rear suspension. Only the vRS and the 1.8 TSI have the better suspension now. The Toyota on the other hand moved from backward suspension to double wishbone fully independent rear suspension (though it's worth pointing out that the 1.33 and 1.4 diesel do not have this more sophisticated set-up, however the old car did not have it on any model unless you went for the not-available-in-Ireland SR180 2.2 diesel that was briefly sold in the UK).

Despite this, neither car is going to win any awards for its dynamic prowess. In many ways, they're both similar, both have feel free steering and don't really reward a press on driver in the twisties. In saying that, the handling is quite good, utterly safe, utterly predictable, plenty of grip and so on. They're both competent without setting the world on fire. The Toyota is the better car to drive thanks to its lighter weight and smaller size so it can be flung into the bends a bit quicker, but the Skoda despite its unsophisticated suspension hardly disgraces itself either. Both ride quite well, but the Toyota has the edge over the Skoda, which seemed unncesarily harsh around town. In saying that once you went beyond about 30 mph the Skoda's ride was perfectly fine and is well able for motorway cruising.

Refinement:
Well on the engine side of things, the petrol is the clear winner as you'd expect, it's smoother and quieter. But the Octavia diesel hardly disgraces itself either, in fact for a four cylinder diesel it's remarkably hushed. But then we get to the horrible CVT gearbox, which tends to send the revs soaring and has that horrible slipping clutch feeling when trying to accelerate. Switching to manual mode transforms the driving experience of the Toyota but that defeats the purpose of an automatic in my opinion. Where the diesel Skoda really shows up its lack of refinement is when pulling away, stopping and starting, this may well be exacerbated by the DSG gearbox, which doesn't have the smoothness of a traditional automatic and even the horrible multidrive Auris pulls away smoothly and is just easier to deal with around town. On the motorway the roles are reversed, the Auris is far noisier, it lets in a lot more wind, road and tyre noise. If it wasn't for the lack of cruise control and the auto dimming rear view mirror, the Skoda would make for an excellent long distance companion.

Conclusion
Given those two specific cars, the Skoda wins every time for me and it's all down to the gearbox. The multidrive gearbox is far too flawed, you should not have to put it into manual mode to make the car nice to drive. While not perfect (and not quite as wonderful as DSG fans make it out to be), the DSG gearbox is vastly superior to the multidrive and disguises most of flaws diesel engines have very well. Having also sampled this very engine in a manual Passat, I cannot stress enough how much the DSG gearbox transforms the driving experience, diesels are far more agreeable things to drive when you don't have to change gears yourself.

But would I buy either car if I was in the market for a small family hatchback? It's a very definite 'no' for me. For starters, I simply couldn't buy a car without an auto-dimming rear view mirror, and I'd find it very hard to buy a car without cruise control either. But that's a criticism of both cars and even in Ireland it's possible to buy versions of both cars with these features as standard. On the other hand the touch screen infotainment systems I'd ditch in the morning, and although parking sensors are nice, I don't really need them either.

The Auris would have been a much better car had it been a manual, I have absolutely no doubt about that, the 1.6 Valvematic engine is (or rather it would be were it not inhibited by a gearbox trying to work against it) a great engine, it blitzes the Skoda for performance and likes to be revved. No direct injection, turbochargers or anything expensive to go wrong in it either. As 1.6 litre petrol engines go, this is a damn good one (although it's a bit gruff at higher revs) and I could see it being perfectly adequate in the Avensis (something that certainly could not be said about the venerable 4A-FE engine or the VVTi engines that preceded this Valvematic unit and that's speaking from personal experience). It's a shame you can't have this engine at all in Ireland now (it used to be available but only with this gearbox), but I'd say that new 1.2 turbo would make a similarly good choice - with a manual gearbox of course, plus the 1.2 also has proper rear suspension like this car.

Similarly the Skoda would have been better if it had a different engine, I would have suggested the 1.4 TSI as being the best bet for this car but unfortunately you cannot buy it in Ireland:(. In that case, either the 1.2 TSI 109 bhp or the 2.0 TDI 148 bhp would be the best bet - the latter would solve the power deficiency while the former will be quieter and have better throttle response. Yes, it won't be any faster, but you'll have €3,000 more in your back pocket, and the motor tax is a measly €20 a year more expensive. And unlike the diesel, the manual gearbox won't drive you mad so that €3,000 saving is now almost a €5,000 one - which is a lot of money.

Even with the right engine and gearbox combination, I'd still take the Skoda because of the comfort and better road manners at higher speeds. It's also got a nicer interior layout and uses higher quality plastics. True, the Toyota has better handling, but it's not that much better and let's face it while both of these cars are competent in many ways, you wouldn't be buying either based on their driving dynamics (I suspect any potential Auris/Octavia buyer couldn't give two hoots about this in any event), you need a Focus or a Mazda 3 for your dynamic thrills in this class, maybe it's not true of the current model 3, but the previous car (the one based on the Focus) would put a smile on your face in a way neither of these cars will.

One last thing, in light of the recent furore over VWs and emissions. Now as we know, modern cars don't exactly do what they're claimed to on fuel consumption. Needless to say I couldn't manage it on either. The Toyota was claimed to do 47.9 mpg, while the Skoda is claimed to do 72.3 mpg (yes, I did go to the trouble of checking). The Toyota did about 35 mpg, that was fair enough I felt as most of my driving was in cities and country roads (where I certainly wasn't trying to drive slowly) and a bit of motorway. The Skoda on the other hand was about 80% motorway/dual carriageway, with the remainder mostly around town and a bit of country road driving as well. When I drove a 1.6 TDI Passat around Ireland two years ago I got 50 mpg even though it was claimed to get 65.7 mpg. So, I certainly wasn't expecting it to reach 60 mpg, but I was disappointed by the fact that I got just 1 mpg more, I only managed 51 mpg.

TL;DR
The Octavia is better but the Skoda had the wrong engine and the Toyota had the wrong gearbox. The Skoda is too slow while the multidrive is a horrible transmission. Both are good cars in their own right but the Skoda is more comfortable and quieter on the motorway. The Auris is a massive improvement on its predecessor and is slightly better to drive than the Skoda. If you're buying the Skoda, get the 1.2 TSI or the 2.0 TDI (unless you're going for the vRS, in which case why would you care what a 1.6 TDI version is like ), if you're buying the Toyota, for the love of Christ get the manual!

jca

You can get the 1.4 TSI DSG in the Style variant (the top model) which I feel would be better for your comparison, Petrol v Petrol. I'd imagine the Toyota 1.4 D4D coupled to that dreadful cvt box would be tough going.