skoda v hyundai

tapest

I'm looking for the opinions of Board members ( pref. mechanics) who know the following models:
a) Skoda Octavia 1.4 basic model...and the model called "Tour" sedan
b) Hyundai Accent ...again basic model...5 door

Kindly note I'm middle aged, balding, overweight..I average 5k miles / yr. ... am not out to impress...Supersonic acceleration not required, but getting up to motorway speed "sometime this week" is just a tad slow....Badge not important.... Reliability and budget are the key words..
Current and previous car Skoda felicia combi 1.3
Never had a car with overhead cam

Now guys...slag the cars...but go easy on me lol
t

ds20prefecture

The Skoda is moderately roomier than the Hyundai, particularly for boot space. Acceleration in the 1.4 is poor-to-adequate.
Residuals stronger on the Skoda.
Perceived quality would be higher on the Skoda, and in terms of reliability surveys it scores better than Hyundai (from memory)

tapest

Residuals = ??? exactly
pardom my ignorance
t

Hellrazer

From working for Hyundai for 5 years now Id say the Accent is probably one of the most reliable cars around.Very rarely see one coming in on the back of a tow truck!!!!

Really bad point though is :Really crap depreciation.By bad Id say 50% in 12 months.The report below shows the reliability of all the current marques.We`re a dealer for both Hyundai/Mitsubishi.Thats why Ive both marked in the list.

The Accent is a lot smaller than an Octavia(rear seating wise) and would probably be my main reason for choosing the Skoda if I was given a choice,but reliability wise they are both very similar.


Hyundai/Mitsubishi the 6th and 7th most reliable marques in production.Taken from What Car magazines warranty reports for 2005.

The manufacturers and the percentage frequency of their repairs:
1. Honda 9.9;
2. Mazda 10.7;
3. Toyota 12.9;
4. Nissan 13.3;
5. Lexus 15.1;
6. Hyundai 16.2;
7. Mitsubishi 17.0;
8. Daewoo 21.9;
9. Skoda 25.2;
10. Mercedes-Benz 25.6;
11. Subaru 26.3;
12. Seat 27.6;
13. Volvo 28.5;
14. Porsche 29.6;
15. Volkswagen 30.1;
16. Peugeot 30.8;
17. BMW 34.0;
18. Fiat 35.3;
19. Vauxhall (Opel) 35.9;
20. Ford 36.4;
21. Chrysler 37.2;
22. MG 37.7;
23. Jaguar 37.9;
24. Citroen 38.0;
25. Renault 38.4;
26. Alfa Romeo 39.4;
27. Rover 40.3;
28. Audi 41.2; 29.
Saab 42.1;
30. Land Rover 45.4

ds20prefecture

tapest wrote:

Residuals = ??? exactly

The Skoda holds it's value better. Bad for you when you're buying, great when you're selling. Overall the true cost of a car is the depreciation. Add the insurance, tax and fuel and you have the total cost of ownership.

you might buy the Accent cheaper, but it will probably cost you more over time.

@Hellrazer - the accent must have no leg room at all if it's smaller than the Mk 1 Octavia

alias no.9

In terms of utter dependability the accent is quick becoming the korean toyota corolla, the body will have completely rusted away before the motor stops running, and I've not heard of any problems with them rusting. The octavia will be a more comfortable car and feel more solid on the road and for what is essentially a budget car, they hold their value very well. The final consideration if it is new, a new octavia was launched late last year, the next accent will be launched late this year or early next year, this means two things, you'll probably be able to haggle much more on the accent but you'll need to because the value will drop substantially when the new one is launched and that the octavia is much more modern and safe.

PaulKK

I can understand this

Hellrazer wrote:

1. Honda 9.9;
2. Mazda 10.7;
3. Toyota 12.9;
4. Nissan 13.3;
5. Lexus 15.1;

But this?????!!!

Hellrazer wrote:

27. Rover 40.3;
28. Audi 41.2; 29.
Saab 42.1;
30. Land Rover 45.4

Anyone think the research may have been slightly flawed?
Also the vws scored way higher, and they share most of their componants with the audis.

stevenmu

Tbh, I've heard of a couple of people with older accents (96/97 kind of era) that have had serious engine or gearbox problems. While they may have more problems, the kind of problems VAG group (skoda, VW, seat, audis) cars tend to have are relatively minor and cheap to fix.

prospect

PaulKK wrote:

I can understand this

But this?????!!!


Anyone think the research may have been slightly flawed?
Also the vws scored way higher, and they share most of their componants with the audis.

Why, because it doesnt have Kia, Alfa, Fiat & Lada at the bottom???

I think it is hilarious to think that Skoda beat Seat who beat VW who beat Audi!
All pretty much the same cars and the reliability goes down as the price goes up?
And, you can't blame the results on the higher number of extras in the more expensive cars, as they come with less than the cheaper ones.

So, Audi 86 or Skoda Superb???

ds20prefecture

PaulKK wrote:

Also the vws scored way higher, and they share most of their componants with the audis.

But Audi charge more for the same components. Also, Audis are assembled at different plants than VWs, Skodas, Seats or indeed Lamborghinis.

stevenmu

PaulKK wrote:

Anyone think the research may have been slightly flawed?
Also the vws scored way higher, and they share most of their componants with the audis.

Audis would have lot's of extra little bits and pieces and electrical gizmos. I wonder if the survey takes into account the nature of problems, will a minor electrical flaw, like a dodgy radio score differently to a borked gearbox ? IIRC, they just ask the readers for how many problems they've experienced not what the problems were, and as Audis cost more, owners would have higher expectations on their quality, and thus may rank a rattle in the glove box as a problem where others wouldn't.

TE0N

I sat in a Skoda Octavia when it was on show, loads of space, well built etc - felt a bit sorry for my mum who spent much more on a passat.

Rediculous, spend thousands more for what it essentially different body panals and a 2 euro badges.

Why not buy a Skoda Fabia saloon or estate (much like the Accent - saloon form) , excellent car, and instead of the 1.4 Octavia, you could probably buy a diesel Fabia, with a bit more performance and economy.

I know a few people with Skoda Fabias and they never have had a serious problem.

bazz26

TE0N wrote:

I sat in a Skoda Octavia when it was on show, loads of space, well built etc - felt a bit sorry for my mum who spent much more on a passat.

Rediculous, spend thousands more for what it essentially different body panals and a 2 euro badges.

Why not buy a Skoda Fabia saloon or estate (much like the Accent - saloon form) , excellent car, and instead of the 1.4 Octavia, you could probably buy a diesel Fabia, with a bit more performance and economy.

I know a few people with Skoda Fabias and they never have had a serious problem.

Actually the new Octavia uses the Mk V Golf platform and running gear not the Passat.

To the OP:

The Octavia Tourer is basically the old model Octavia hatchback which is still can be bought new here.

The new Octavia is just called Octavia and is available in hatchback and estate (called Combi). Also there is a new Hyundai Accent going on sale early in the new year as the current model is about 5 years old.

New Octavia
Advantages:
Newer safer design, huge boot and rear legroom, nice interior finish, good resale value, brilliant diesel range, better value than a VW.
Disadvantages:
1.4 is underpowered, base model is not very well equipped and exterior styling is kind of bland.

Hyundai Accent
Advantages:
Cheap new car motoring, very reliable, plenty of standard equipment incl a/c, straight forward mechanics - cheap to maintaine and service, 3 year warranty (offered 5 years at one point).
Disadvantages:
Weird looks, high depreciation, hard to trade against another make, plasticy interiors, very light on the road, body panels feel as if they are made of paper, new model almost here.

TE0N

I meant to say that it was the older versions of both octavia and passat.

bazz26 wrote:

The Octavia Tourer is basically the old model Octavia hatchback which is still can be bought new here.

Why buy this new, depreciation will be savage! IMHO, take the second hand option.

ds20prefecture

I had assumed the OP meant buying second hand. For a new car the choice is a no-brainer, buy the new shape Skoda Octavia. I didn't think this was available in 1.4.

If you buy the old shape Octavia new, your depreciation will be much steeper.

bazz26

I assumed from the OP was talking about the Octavia Tourer that he/she was buying new as both the old (Touring) and new Octavia are still sold new along side each other.

Teon,

The old Octavia shared it's platform and running gear with the previous Golf/Bora, Seat Leon/Toledo and Audi A3.

The previous Passat used the same platform as the Audi A4.

All VW/SEAT/AUDI/SKODA models share engines and gearboxes.

Cucullan

I had a 1.4 Octavia and it was very well built and shouldn't give you much trouble. If your doing alot of town driving you might be better off with a 1.6 as the body is heavy for the 1.4 engine and the clutch can give problems. I haven't drived a new Hyundia but I did drive a 00 Accent and it was terrible, suspension, interior everything was worse than the Octavia but the engines are supposed to be great. Octavia looks better too.

PaulKK

ds20prefecture wrote:

But Audi charge more for the same components. Also, Audis are assembled at different plants than VWs, Skodas, Seats or indeed Lamborghinis.

Sorry man thats bullshit, my father has an A4, and he gets the parts for it from the main dealer for servicing. All the boxes have vw, audi, seat and skoda on them, i'm nearly 100% sure that a good few parts are interchangable between many models. e.g. A4/Passat as previously said.

I'm sure if you ask for an oil filter for an audi, they're not goin to charge you more than if you ask for one for a skoda.

Dilbert75

In the Auto Express Driver Power survey, the Mk 1 Octavia came 4th, the Accent wasn't in the top 100 models listed but overall Hyundai came 20th (down from 16th last year) vs. Skoda's 2nd place (same as last year).

ds20prefecture

PaulKK wrote:

Sorry man thats bullshit

Well let me put it this way - timing belt swap on a 1.6 A4 from Audi dealer including full service - €850. Timing belt swap on 1.6 Octavia from Skoda dealer including service - €400. That's €450 worth of bullshit.

tapest

Guys
Thanks for all the replies...I WAS TALKING NEW.......Please keep the comments coming, very much appreciated
t

Cucullan

ds20prefecture wrote:

Well let me put it this way - timing belt swap on a 1.6 A4 from Audi dealer including full service - €850. Timing belt swap on 1.6 Octavia from Skoda dealer including service - €400. That's €450 worth of bullshit.

I heard somewhere that although Audi/VW/Skoda etc share engine parts Skoda engines are actually a generation older than the Audi & VW so say you had an 05 1.4 Golf and an 05 1.4 Octavia the engines aren't identical the one in the Octavia is the same as the MK4 Golf hence they can produce the car cheaper

BrianD3

ds20prefecture wrote:

Well let me put it this way - timing belt swap on a 1.6 A4 from Audi dealer including full service - €850. Timing belt swap on 1.6 Octavia from Skoda dealer including service - €400. That's €450 worth of bullshit.

Mightn't be the best example - doesn't the Audi have a longitudinal engine? IIRC most of the front of the car has to be taken off to get at the belt. Whereas the Skoda has a transverse engine and requires less labour to change the belt.

I would be surpirsed if Audi are charging more for parts than other VAG brands. Consider that many VW dealers do Audi too. So you walk into the dealer to buy a water pump for you A3 and you ask the price. Then you ask how much the exact same water pump is for a Golf. Would they really have the nerve to quote you a cheaper price for the Golf?

bazz26

Cucullan wrote:

I heard somewhere that although Audi/VW/Skoda etc share engine parts Skoda engines are actually a generation older than the Audi & VW so say you had an 05 1.4 Golf and an 05 1.4 Octavia the engines aren't identical the one in the Octavia is the same as the MK4 Golf hence they can produce the car cheaper

The 1.4 75bhp engine in the Golf is the same 1.4 75bhp engine found in the Octavia. VAG carried this engine over from the previous generation Golf and Octavia.

bazz26

BrianD3 wrote:

Mightn't be the best example - doesn't the Audi have a longitudinal engine? IIRC most of the front of the car has to be taken off to get at the belt. Whereas the Skoda has a transverse engine and requires less labour to change the belt.

I would be surpirsed if Audi are charging more for parts than other VAG brands. Consider that many VW dealers do Audi too. So you walk into the dealer to buy a water pump for you A3 and you ask the price. Then you ask how much the exact same water pump is for a Golf. Would they really have the nerve to quote you a cheaper price for the Golf?

Yes the 1.6 102bhp 8 valve non FSi engine is the same engine fitted to the Golf, Octavia and A4 but is fitted longitudinal in the A4. Granted something like a timing belt might be more expensive to do but I would have thought a standard service should be the same. I have heard of Audi owners getting their cars serviced at Skoda dealers without issue because they are cheaper. From what I heard Bosch supply most of the parts anyway.

As for dealers charging different prices for different badges I would not be supprised one bit.

maidhc

The Octavia is a fine car, and so much of it is similar to the Audi A4. Anyone familiar with both cars will recognise the dashboard controls, electric window switches, and engines.

The new octavia has the same diesel engines as the current Audis. The octavia tour still uses the previous generation diesels. I presume the same goes for the petrols.

The Audis do use some different parts, e.g. aluminium where the vw's or skoda's use steel. By and large however they are extremely similar cars.

Personally I think a 1.4 in an octavia will be awful slow, and perhaps a 1.4 fabia, or 1.6 octavia would be a better option.

I know you can get an Octavia Tour (old model) 1.9 TDI for about 20k cash at the moment, which is fantastic value for a good solid car that will see 200k without a bother.

The Hyundai's seem cheap and bland. Go Skoda.

(An alternative would be a 1.4 Corolla...?)

PaulKK

BrianD3 wrote:

Mightn't be the best example - doesn't the Audi have a longitudinal engine? IIRC most of the front of the car has to be taken off to get at the belt. Whereas the Skoda has a transverse engine and requires less labour to change the belt.

Explains this

ds20prefecture wrote:

Well let me put it this way - timing belt swap on a 1.6 A4 from Audi dealer including full service - €850. Timing belt swap on 1.6 Octavia from Skoda dealer including service - €400. That's €450 worth of bull****

You'll notice I said in my previous post that the parts are the same price, not the labour. I'm sure the passat has this same difficulty for a timing belt change, and most Audi/VW dealers charge the same for a belt change on both.

The labour of course ranges ridiculously in price, for example, I know of a garage in cork that deal in both mazda and mercedes. The mazda hourly rate is at least €30 p.h cheaper than the merc, and the same guy does the service! Of course this is obviously going to apply to Skoda or Seat, or any other brands which are not considered to be in the same 'class'.

BrianD3 wrote:

I would be surpirsed if Audi are charging more for parts than other VAG brands. Consider that many VW dealers do Audi too. So you walk into the dealer to buy a water pump for you A3 and you ask the price. Then you ask how much the exact same water pump is for a Golf. Would they really have the nerve to quote you a cheaper price for the Golf?

Thats what I'm saying, agreed.

ds20prefecture

PaulKK wrote:

BrianD3 wrote:

I would be surpirsed if Audi are charging more for parts than other VAG brands. Consider that many VW dealers do Audi too. So you walk into the dealer to buy a water pump for you A3 and you ask the price. Then you ask how much the exact same water pump is for a Golf. Would they really have the nerve to quote you a cheaper price for the Golf?

Thats what I'm saying, agreed.

Engine Mount RH A3 1.8 / 1.8T / 1.9 TDi 96> Manual - STG£36.50
Engine mount RH SUPERB 02> 1.8T,2.0 - STG£24.50

BRAKE DISC-VENTED 256mm A3 1.6 96 > STG£24
BRAKE DISC-VENT Superb 02 > STG£15

Oil Filter - A3 - STG£5.95
Oil Filter - Superb - STG3.80

A3 IGNITION STARTER SWITCH - STG£14
Superb IGNITION STARTER SWITCH - STG£9

Source GSFcarparts.com

So some common parts for the bottom-end audi (A3) are roughly 50% more expensive than parts for the top-end Skoda, even though as you say they are mostly from the same supplier. I'm sure that there are some bits on the skoda that are more expensive if I look hard enough, but mostly it seems that the audi is dearer, and certainly labour is higher in VAG dealers than Skoda ones.

So on the whole, I believe my statement is not bullshit, and they would have the nerve to charge you more. Bear in mind also that GSF are an independent parts supplier - the dealers are not so the price difference may be even higher.

woody

I drive a skoda fabia and servicing costs are very low compared to the likes of a polo etc.


my dad has a 02 Polo and a 20K service was €210 from a vw dealer

my 03 Fabia after a 20K service was €103 from a skoda dealer
Now am I missing something here ??

ds20prefecture

I wonder what the OP went for?

tapest

ds20prefecture wrote:

I wonder what the OP went for?

HeHe.....

The OP will tell you all....when I'm thanking ye for your help( and yes it is help and it is appreciated).....when I've actually picked one.....I'm leaning towards Skoda, but depends on the deal I get. Trying to see if one of the dealers can accomodate me as regards registering in 06,but they say I'll lose another grand on trade in.
I will advise of outcome
regards
t

Jip

I was only in a dealers last week when I was dropping my older model in and I had a sit in the new Octavia, I really liked the inside and I thought the seats were great, didn't take it for a spin though, didn't want any further temptation !

tapest

guys

just as a little aside.....petrol v diesel engine

Taking into account the higher purchase price, higher tax and insurance, higher maintenance costs(?). of the diesel over petrol engine....eg Octavia 1.4 petrol against 1.9 diesel.

At what point do you break even with cheaper diesel fuel.....in other words what sort of milage /usage would justify opting for diesel.

Any more comments hyundai v skoda....I have met a couple of hyundai owners recently and they swear by them....I'm still leaning towards Octavia 1.4 ambient(new model)
thanks inadvance
t

maidhc

You cant compare an Octavia 1.4 petrol to a 1.9 Diesel.

Driving the 1.4 will be a battle with the gearbox while the Diesel will cruise all day in 5th (where there isnt tailbacks...)

I have no idea at what point the car will repay in terms of mileage, but you should get most of the premium back on resale, not to mention it should sell far quicker than a dangerously underpowered 1.4

alias no.9

tapest wrote:

guys

just as a little aside.....petrol v diesel engine

Taking into account the higher purchase price, higher tax and insurance, higher maintenance costs(?). of the diesel over petrol engine....eg Octavia 1.4 petrol against 1.9 diesel.

At what point do you break even with cheaper diesel fuel.....in other words what sort of milage /usage would justify opting for diesel.

Any more comments hyundai v skoda....I have met a couple of hyundai owners recently and they swear by them....I'm still leaning towards Octavia 1.4 ambient(new model)
thanks inadvance
t

A general rule of thumb for new cars wouuld be 20k miles pa. The maintenance costs aren't necessarily higher but the service intervals are shorter, ie cheaper servicing but more frequent.

prospect

Why does everyone compare a 1.4 petrol to a 1.9 diesel?

Are some people under the impression these engines are equal performance wise? If you are under that impression, you are so so so wrong...

For example:
Compare a 1.4 petrol polo to a 1.4 diesel polo
Tax - Same
Insurance - Same
Purchase cost - Petrol is cheaper
Resale value - Petrol gets less
Servicing - Negligable
Cost of ownership excluding fuel - Same

Petrol Price - Higher than diesel
Diesel price - Less than petrol
MPG - Diesel is far superior

OVERALL cost of ownership - Diesel is cheaper. The higher milage you do, the more pronounced this is.
Also a modern 1.4 diesel engine will be more torque-ie (is that a word?) and possibly more BHP, and deffo more tunable.

tapest

Maidhc & Alias no.9
Thanks for reply

20 k miles / yr....yeh, ok , right.....I do about 5k /yr tops...so that's one outta way

I take your point about 1.4 v 1.9D....A fairer comparison would have been 1.6 petrol...academic now.
I expected the 1.4, pulling that amount of metal to be a little underpowered...but "dangerously" so. Could you expand on this before I commit myself???
regards
t

maidhc

An exaggeration on my part...

I would say if you are traveling from cork <-> dublin a lot with 5 adults you may find overtaking artics a somewhat tiresome experience (I base this on my mk1 mondeo 1.8TD!!!) , but I would imagine for ordinary driving the 1.4 will be a grand car. It is fantastic value too for what you are getting.

tapest

Hi Folks

AS promised the final decision

I started dittering , Nissan almera compared well in price, specs etc, also looked at Astra. But.....I bit the bullet and went for Octavia 1.4 ambient. Overriding point was leg room in rear and height adjust front passenger seat( although later I was told it could be added to base model for less than 100€. I have two very ocassional passengers with medical problems, hence need for space and as I'm the only driverin the 3 households...
I plumbed for factory installed alarm ( usually install my own cheapo), am slightly worried about "fully integrated"...and not having the ability of shutting it down.

Many thanks lads for letting yourselves be used as sounding boards.Greately appreciated
t