Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Skoda Superb Combi - choose Age vs Miles

  • 06-08-2021 3:24pm
    #1
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,094 ✭✭✭


    Trying to decide between these two 2.0 D Superb estates. Spec wise they’re pretty much equivalent, and both have all the stuff I want. So it’s really down to the individual cars. The difference is the age, mileage and price (although both are within my budget).

    Option A: 2015 (mk ii), 162,000 km, €15,950

    https://www.carzone.ie/search/202106264293575/advert

    or

    Option B: 2017 (mk iii), 216,137 km, €18,950

    https://www.carzone.ie/search/202107054660632/advert


    So option B gives a 2 year benefit (with a model revision), but a 54,000 km deficit, and a 3 grand difference.

    Assuming both run well and have no issues, which one to go with?



Comments

  • #2
    Stallingrad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,190 ✭✭✭Stallingrad


    I really wouldn't get hung up on the mileage difference between the two, makes no odds really assuming they both have FSH.

    Think the real decision is whether the new model is worth the extra €3k to you? Personally I would go for the newer car as it is far more up to date inside and out than the aging, but well equipped and still very capable Mark 2.



  • #3
    3d4life
    Registered Users Posts: 902 ✭✭✭3d4life


    Go for the FWD unless you need a 4 X 4



  • #4
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,478 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    The 2017 without a doubt.



  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I'd go for the 2015, the money on the 2017 is far too high for the miles. I think if you could get the 2015 for 15k you'd be doing well.


    Best of luck.



  • #6
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,094 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Well, nobody’s budging at all on price. They know it’s a seller’s market at the moment.

    Drove them both, and I went with the 171.

    Thanks all for your input.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement