Octavia/Golf/Avensis

Esse85

All I.6Lr

If you'd to choose a brand new company car, doing 60000km annually, which would you choose and why?

colm_mcm

Golf, if your company is spending Avensis money, you'd surely get a nicely specked Golf for that.

Miike

Avensis is way more comfortable if you're doing that high mileage.

pa990

Octavia or Golf.

The Avensis will be the most reliable, but the most boring.

Golf for fun
Octavia for comfort
Avensis for reliability and complete boredom.

Miike

pa990 wrote: »

Octavia or Golf.

The Avensis will be the most reliable, but the most boring.

Golf for fun
Octavia for comfort
Avensis for reliability and complete boredom.

Octavia more comfortable?

I switched from an Octavia to an Avensis not long ago. Octavia was desperately uncomfortable on long drives! It's why I got rid of it :eek:

colm_mcm

Miike wrote: »

Avensis is way more comfortable if you're doing that high mileage.

It'll be bigger.

NIMAN

If you need storage, forget about the Golf.

punisher5112

NIMAN wrote: »

If you need storage, forget about the Golf.

Golf estate???

bmwguy

Personally out of them I would get a very well specced golf. In my experience company cars usually have a 30k budget, the Golf you would get for 30k would be nice. Would you get a high performance diesel for 30k? It will have to be diesel so company can claim back VAT so forget about petrol.

Octavia close second, the diesel VRS or whatever it's called.

Every version of the Avensis, it just looks like Toyota aren't even trying to make it appealing, it's the most boring non descript car on the road. Not a bad car, just hugely dull.

Edit: Just saw all 1.6 litre. All boring so.

Esse85

No clear favourite so.

I'm kinda leaning towards the Skoda Octavia Ambition as I'm 6" 3 and like a spacious car.
Had Skoda Superb previously and liked that.

Skoda is the cheapest of the 3 options at €25k, GOLF is 27k and Avensis €28k

punisher5112

Esse85 wrote: »

No clear favourite so.

I'm kinda leaning towards the Skoda Octavia Ambition as I'm 6" 3 and like a spacious car.
Had Skoda Superb previously and liked that.

Skoda is the cheapest of the 3 options at €25k, GOLF is 27k and Avensis €28k

More leg room in Mondeo then the Octavia have both.

kay 9

Any other options or is it only them 3?

Esse85

kay 9 wrote: »

Any other options or is it only them 3?

Just them three.

JohnBoy26

bmwguy wrote: »

Personally out of them I would get a very well specced golf. In my experience company cars usually have a 30k budget, the Golf you would get for 30k would be nice. Would you get a high performance diesel for 30k? It will have to be diesel so company can claim back VAT so forget about petrol.

Octavia close second, the diesel VRS or whatever it's called.

Every version of the Avensis, it just looks like Toyota aren't even trying to make it appealing, it's the most boring non descript car on the road. Not a bad car, just hugely dull.

Edit: Just saw all 1.6 litre. All boring so.

In fairness the mk2 was a very decent car that might not have been the most exciting in terms of design but appealed to people because of it's more important qualities.

The mk3 was a step back but the faclift has adressed most of the criticisms and it's definatly the most comfortable and easiest car to live with on the op's list.

JohnBoy26

Esse85 wrote: »

No clear favourite so.

I'm kinda leaning towards the Skoda Octavia Ambition as I'm 6" 3 and like a spacious car.
Had Skoda Superb previously and liked that.

Skoda is the cheapest of the 3 options at €25k, GOLF is 27k and Avensis €28k

Id take all 3-for a good test drive to see which one suits best. Personally I wouldn't opt for an octavia if I was doing long journeys very often as I find the seats to be very firm in them.

AMKC

Get an Octavia L&k and you will be driving around with all the kit you could ever want and more and very comfortable too. There is a revamped Golf coming out so buying a Golf now you might end up with the version before the revamp where as the revamped Octavia is out now.

kay 9

Esse85 wrote: »

Just them three.

In that case, the avensis

colm_mcm

Keep BIK in mind too.

Leonard Hofstadter

pa990 wrote: »

The Avensis will be the most reliable

Most reliable? Lol, it uses the disastrous BMW N47 diesel engine. Admittedly I've been told that Toyota made them change the timing chain and a couple of other bits (it has that weird thing called a dipstick, unlike any BMW with that engine, for example), also they have to be serviced every 20,000 km (rather than 30,000+ km with BMW's stupid variable servicing intervals), but it's far too early to say if these revisions mean it will be Toyota reliable or BMW reliable, given that the oldest Toyotas with this engine are less than three years old.

There is a 2010 Mk3 Avensis in the family since the car was new, so it's the original one before the two facelifts and while the Toyota designed D4D engine has been nothing but 100% reliable in the 280 odd thousand km (still on the original clutch and DMF, too, and the DPF has never gone wrong either), but it's had problems with the airbags and doors, those parts of the car have not been Toyota quality at all. From a driving perspective, the electric parking brake is in a terrible location and is nowhere near as smooth as the VW one, it rides quite harshly compared to the Mk2 Avensis and the interior is a step backwards compared to it as well. The seats are good though and most models have adjustable lumbar support (a notable absence in its predecessor), which is very important on any car doing high mileage. Maybe the second facelift is a big step forward (the interior certainly looks like a big improvement compared to the original Mk3s), but I'm sceptical it's anywhere even close to the likes of the Mondeo or Passat.

I'd go with a Golf if space is not important, the Octavia is a nice car but the 1.6 TDI is anaemic in it (I've driven one and it could really do with the 2.0 TDI), it's a lot bigger than a Golf. A Golf will have the nicest interior and be quieter than the Skoda, refinement really matters when you're doing that kind of mileage.

Is there any scope for optional extras? With that kind of mileage good spec is important, definitely consider things like a seat upgrade - and definitely get something with lumbar support, cruise control and an auto dimming rear view mirror, they are the three most useful things you can have in a car that's doing long distance journeys.

grogi

colm_mcm wrote: »

Keep BIK in mind too.

With this kind of business miles (I assume most are business), the difference in BIK will be minimal.

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Id take all 3-for a good test drive to see which one suits best. Personally I wouldn't opt for an octavia if I was doing long journeys very often as I find the seats to be very firm in them.

The seats in Octavia differ massively between trims.

captainspeed wrote: »

Most reliable? Lol, it uses the disastrous BMW N47 diesel engine. Admittedly I've been told that Toyota made them change the timing chain and a couple of other bits

The biggest change is the orientation of the engine... It is transverse in Toyotas... What was a disaster in a BMW - the chain behind the engine - is no longer an issue. There should be significantly less labour involved in fixing it should anything goes wrong...

BMW is using virtually identical B47 engine now; I want to believe that 9 years later they eventually have found the source of the problems.



Refinement wise - a compact will never be refined as a class D vehicle. I personally would go for an Avensis...

selectamatic

A base spec golf will not have interior any better than the avensis or octavia.

The avensis is the most comfortable of the 3 as well.

Just on the electric handbrake issues since they all became the norm around 2009 the avensis' one while criticised for it's activation and switch location has still been more reliable than the vw ones but more importantly it's cheaper to fix than the vw unit should anything go wrong.

Of the 3 the avensis is the best choice for a high mile company car 6 speed box as well where as the golf will only be a 5 speed and unless the octavia is the greenline edition it'll be a 5 speed too.

650Ginge

captainspeed wrote: »

Most reliable? Lol, it uses the disastrous BMW N47 diesel engine. Admittedly I've been told that Toyota made them change the timing chain and a couple of other bits (it has that weird thing called a dipstick, unlike any BMW with that engine, for example), also they have to be serviced every 20,000 km (rather than 30,000+ km with BMW's stupid variable servicing intervals), but it's far too early to say if these revisions mean it will be Toyota reliable or BMW reliable, given that the oldest Toyotas with this engine are less than three years old.

There is a 2010 Mk3 Avensis in the family since the car was new, so it's the original one before the two facelifts and while the Toyota designed D4D engine has been nothing but 100% reliable in the 280 odd thousand km (still on the original clutch and DMF, too, and the DPF has never gone wrong either), but it's had problems with the airbags and doors, those parts of the car have not been Toyota quality at all. From a driving perspective, the electric parking brake is in a terrible location and is nowhere near as smooth as the VW one, it rides quite harshly compared to the Mk2 Avensis and the interior is a step backwards compared to it as well. The seats are good though and most models have adjustable lumbar support (a notable absence in its predecessor), which is very important on any car doing high mileage. Maybe the second facelift is a big step forward (the interior certainly looks like a big improvement compared to the original Mk3s), but I'm sceptical it's anywhere even close to the likes of the Mondeo or Passat.

I'd go with a Golf if space is not important, the Octavia is a nice car but the 1.6 TDI is anaemic in it (I've driven one and it could really do with the 2.0 TDI), it's a lot bigger than a Golf. A Golf will have the nicest interior and be quieter than the Skoda, refinement really matters when you're doing that kind of mileage.

Is there any scope for optional extras? With that kind of mileage good spec is important, definitely consider things like a seat upgrade - and definitely get something with lumbar support, cruise control and an auto dimming rear view mirror, they are the three most useful things you can have in a car that's doing long distance journeys.

All the n47s have a dipstick.....Maybe it's the dipstick that can find it. A 1.6 avensis is not an n47.

Leonard Hofstadter

grogi wrote: »

The biggest change is the orientation of the engine... It is transverse in Toyotas... What was a disaster in a BMW - the chain behind the engine - is no longer an issue. There should be significantly less labour involved in fixing it should anything goes wrong...

BMW is using virtually identical B47 engine now; I want to believe that 9 years later they eventually have found the source of the problems.

So, because the engine layout is different, it is OK because instead of it having a fault that costs nearly €2,000 to repair, it will now cost possibly €1,200 upwards?

I'm sorry but improving something from utterly disgraceful to totally unacceptable is not good enough. A timing chain should last the entire lifetime of an engine, no ifs or buts. If it's not capable of lasting then they should go back to timing belts. Had BMW designed the N47 (and N57) properly there would be no problem at all with the timing chain being in the wrong place.

The B47 is not virtually identical to the N47 (thankfully), BMW claims that all it shares with the N47 is the bore and stroke (and the timing chain in the wrong place). So far the B47 has not given any timing chain problems, but the oldest models are only three years old, and even so, it makes no difference to the OP as he or she is not buying a car with that engine.

I've done thousands of kms in the Mk3 Avensis - and I don't like them at all. The Mk2 Avensis, a car I know like the back of my hand, is nicer inside (much better made), rides better and is quieter than the Mk3, although the seats aren't as good. It's a very good car, not the last word in driving pleasure thanks to the overly light steering and the Aura and Strata models are pants inside with their acres of shiny black plastic, but it does everything else very well, it even handles well for a front wheel drive car. I've driven 700 km in an Ocativa (in one day I might add) and I'd have the Skoda every time over the Mk3 Avensis.

650Ginge wrote: »

All the n47s have a dipstick.....Maybe it's the dipstick that can find it. A 1.6 avensis is not an n47.

My apologies about the N47s not having dipsticks, I know a lot of the modern BMWs don't have them and I thought the N47 was similar. You're wrong about the Avensis, though, the 1.6 D-4D most certainly is an N47, although as I've said previously, Toyota made BMW change some bits of it.

colm_mcm

With the mk2 Avensis it's the petrol/diesel that makes the different in steering. Electric vs hydraulic.

grogi

captainspeed wrote: »

So, because the engine layout is different, it is OK because instead of it having a fault that costs nearly €2,000 to repair, it will now cost possibly €1,200 upwards?

I'm sorry but improving something from utterly disgraceful to totally unacceptable is not good enough. A timing chain should last the entire lifetime of an engine, no ifs or buts. If it's not capable of lasting then they should go back to timing belts.

Why? Simply because it is called chain, not belt? Maybe belts in this engine would be even more disgraceful?

As long it is easy to service, I really don't have an issue with changing it once during the car lifetime. It is when it was designed not to be serviceable the problem starts...

The B47 is not virtually identical to the N47 (thankfully), BMW claims that all it shares with the N47 is the bore and stroke (and the timing chain in the wrong place).

So it shares the design of short block.

My apologies about the N47s not having dipsticks, I know a lot of the modern BMWs don't have them and I thought the N47 was similar. You're wrong about the Avensis, though, the 1.6 D-4D most certainly is an N47, although as I've said previously, Toyota made BMW change some bits of it.

You're right - there is indeed N47B16, in two power options 70 and 85 kW.

JohnBoy26

captainspeed wrote: »

So, because the engine layout is different, it is OK because instead of it having a fault that costs nearly €2,000 to repair, it will now cost possibly €1,200 upwards?

I'm sorry but improving something from utterly disgraceful to totally unacceptable is not good enough. A timing chain should last the entire lifetime of an engine, no ifs or buts. If it's not capable of lasting then they should go back to timing belts. Had BMW designed the N47 (and N57) properly there would be no problem at all with the timing chain being in the wrong place.

The B47 is not virtually identical to the N47 (thankfully), BMW claims that all it shares with the N47 is the bore and stroke (and the timing chain in the wrong place). So far the B47 has not given any timing chain problems, but the oldest models are only three years old, and even so, it makes no difference to the OP as he or she is not buying a car with that engine.

I've done thousands of kms in the Mk3 Avensis - and I don't like them at all. The Mk2 Avensis, a car I know like the back of my hand, is nicer inside (much better made), rides better and is quieter than the Mk3, although the seats aren't as good. It's a very good car, not the last word in driving pleasure thanks to the overly light steering and the Aura and Strata models are pants inside with their acres of shiny black plastic, but it does everything else very well, it even handles well for a front wheel drive car. I've driven 700 km in an Ocativa (in one day I might add) and I'd have the Skoda every time over the Mk3 Avensis.



My apologies about the N47s not having dipsticks, I know a lot of the modern BMWs don't have them and I thought the N47 was similar. You're wrong about the Avensis, though, the 1.6 D-4D most certainly is an N47, although as I've said previously, Toyota made BMW change some bits of it.

This is not the case in many engines. Some manufacturers even recommend changing the chain at set intervals.