Our "own" car reviews

Wait, a 2000 Passat syncro? I thought they switched to Haldex 4Motion a bit before that.

The first of the B5 passats wore Syncro badges. 4Motion badges appeared after a while. I'm guessing it happened when the Golf 4 appeared, because all Golfs from 4 and onwards have been called 4motion in AWD form.

Whatever the badge on the back reads doesn't matter in the slightest, though. This goes for all VAG products. What matter is what platform they were built on. The B5 (and B5.5) Passat uses the same greasy bits as the first Audi A4, so the drivetrain is going to be Torsen regardless. Haldex on the Passat didn't happen until the B6 in 2005.

And this works in reverse, too. An A3 quattro isn't going to magically have the all-conquering torsen AWD just because the badge reads quattro. It's Haldex, just like the Golf and Octavia.
 
Shame, as I bet adding a 2.0 engine or a manual box (both combined ideally) would make this SO much more fun to drive.

I have driven a 5008 with the 2l diesel and a manual (albeit a good few years ago) and I remember it to be very capable for a reasonably long journey. We had 6 people in it with luggage for half the journey. Definitely recommended for the powertrain, not so much for the space inside (for an MPV).

It was also pretty susceptible to damage it seemed. The other car (we rented 2) had a small crash in stop/start traffic (into back of another car at ~15mph/25kph). Caused ?4000 of damage and the airbags didn't even go off...

Anyway; back onto the pool car roulette. Was meant to have an MG6, but it was taken into the workshop for emergency repairs, so I was left last thing yesterday running round the office trying to find a car. I eventually found an MG3, then hit the jackpot and found another car (better for long journey with 4 people);

2013 Skoda Octavia 1.6 TDI S
skoda-octavia-2013-front-quarter-cornering.jpg

So an MQB car. We have a new Audi A3 as well, but that was sadly unavailable. Not such a bad thing as it turned out to be, though.

So the first impressions of this was that of a lot of space inside. The hatchback seemed very useful for loading up anything of size, and the boot seemed perfectly capable of swallowing it up no problem as well. Sitting behind the wheel it felt absolutely huge. This car was a LHD so that may have had a slight influence (not used to there being lots of space to my right - usually a door there), but even so it was clear this car is huge, especially for the price.

This car was pretty much base 'S' spec with a couple of extras; heated seats, armrest...and that's about it. But even so it still came with a nice and easy to use radio with MP3 input, and everything was exactly where you'd expect it to be. Volvo levels of quality in here. I'd guess this car was around ?19,000 new, which is absolutely insane value. One thing that surprised me was this was one of the first cars in a long while I was able to get a completely comfortable seating position in; mostly thanks to the nicely adjustable steering wheel. And the seats are extremely comfortable; VW/Skoda being one of the only manufacturers that can make properly comfy cloth seats these days. Only criticism of them would be that they were a bit wide. Maybe I'm just too thin, but they could have been a bit more...hugging. Still; extremely nice interior. Despite it being all black it never felt dull or claustrophobic. One thing that did hit me though was the quietness of it. The first time the engine stop/start cut in I didn't notice the engine had stopped for a good few seconds. Highly impressive soundproofing for a budget car any car.

The engine in this car was the 1.6 diesel; 105bhp/250Nm. That doesn't sound like much, but it was truly adequate. Only when going for an overtake on the motorway did it take a few seconds to get to speed; but then I'm used to effortless and huge turbo surge, so most things feel slow. It cruised at 70-90 (115-145) perfectly happily, though, however the one thing I would ask to be added is a 6th gear. It did feel a bit let down without it, but I can imagine it would be a lot less drivable with a 6 speed and no more torque. Shame, but most definitely an easily forgiven problem. Skoda do offer a 2l diesel, with a 6 speed, which I would suspect would be a lot nicer to drive, but then provides slightly worse fuel economy and falls into a higher tax band in the UK (the 1.6 is free to tax because <100g/km CO2). If you live in Germany then I think the 2l would be the only realistic option as this 1.6 genuinely just stopped accelerating at 105mph/170kph. I managed a recorded 55.5mpg (4.2l/100km) cruising on motorways at 85ish with a fair amount at 60mph through roadworks. Not driving carefully, so that does seem good.

It handled OK; nothing special but it always felt planted and never skittish or too heavy. Just right. Which says it all about the car to be honest. Everything was exactly what you'd want from a car; nothing over the top or extravagant; nothing silly or expensive; nothing wrong. Just a really nice, comfortable, economic, smooth car to cruise in. Highly recommended for anyone looking for something cheap but useable. I suspect the estate would be the best option. I'd actually give it a good 7.5/10.
 
Last edited:

He works in the car industry and around a bunch of badass and weird stuff.

Who knows, they might have bought an Octavia to take apart and see how they did LHD stuff on the MQB platform. :)
 
...and put it back together to be used as a pool car? Seems far-fetched.

Or it wasn't taken apart just yet.

:dunno: Alan Mulally said in an interview (for TWiT? can't remember) that he usually drives pretty much everything except Ford products, because he wants to know the competition.
 
I work for a Chinese car company, and I believe this Skoda was sent out to China for benchmarking out there, and has since been sent back (because its that or scrap in CN). China's importing rules are insane; the car must be brand new (and LHD) to be allowed in. Supposedly just a few km over delivery mileage or a tiny error in the declaration of what spec/engine it has and it could be rejected. Further more any prototypes/production cars not sold in the UK are obviously LHD only, so its completely normal and not unusual for cars to be LHD. Even the MG3 and 6 which are produced in the UK we have some old China spec cars lying around which are pre-UK-production LHD cars. :)

Perc has hit it on the head; we have a lot or competitor cars purely for benchmarking. It happens all over the car industry; I have even heard rumours that Aston and Ferrari make special cars for each other with weaker glue holding them together so they're easier to take apart... :lol: This Skoda isn't really a pool car but rather a benchmarking car; as we don't have that many pool cars benchmarking or engineering cars often get used instead. Its perfectly road legal and safe; we've just had a thorough look around.
 
Last edited:
So another day, another MQB car. Or more accurately, two...

The main one though, is an identical to the picture;

2012 Audi A3 SE 1.4 TFSI (122PS)

audi-a3-tfsi-140-sport-3dr-74256097-1.jpg

Actually a RHD one as well! :lol:

So this is a base spec A3. It only has the extras of rear parking sensors and dual zone climate control. Not the usual kind of car I would imagine they sell. Options are expensive, and often added. If you wanted a cheap A3 you'd buy a Golf, right?

Well interestingly I've also been driving a base spec VW Golf 7 S 1.4 TSI (122PS). No optional extras (not even parking sensors this time). The similarities are there.

So anyway the A3. The first thing I noticed was how absolutely nice the interior is. I know; its an Audi, but I think they've been drifting off recently inside, but this is right back on form. Simple, elegant, functional and it doesn't feel cluttered or a mess. The retractable screen means that you can have almost no dashboard at all. Despite the many blanked buttons this one has they don't stand out or appear as if something is missing. The one thing that is missing, and that I didn't actually notice for a while, is the CD player. Its in the glovebox, but once you notice it you really notice how much cleaner things can look without a big straight slot in the middle. Did I miss it all? No. This car's interior is an extraordinarily nice place to be, and very spacious for a small car. Sure there wasn't much space behind my driving position, but give the keys to someone who isn't quite as tall as me and there would be ample room in the back even for me. No concerns even with headroom. And I don't fit in the back of an Insignia...

While this car doesn't have many options, it still has plenty of toys, so kudos to Audi for not forgetting that a base Audi should still be better than other small cars. The four rings don't come cheap, though. This base spec car with a couple of options costs around ?21,000. Whichever way you look at it that's a lot. You can see why most would add on some more options. A ?25-30k car specced through the roof just seems like a better deal than a poverty stricken 21 grand.

My initial concern before driving this was the engine. 122PS doesn't sound like a lot. But if anything this (and the Golf) prove that its not how much power you have, but how it is delivered. And VW/Audi seem to have written the masterclass on this one. No turbo lag, no delay, oodles of torque anywhere you want it (no seriously it happily pulls from 30mph (50kph) in 6th gear...) - again despite a listing of only 200Nm available from 1400rpm and even a nice throaty noise when you get nearer the top, which is where you find the only slight weak spot. On a good run I was sitting comfortably at 50mpg (5.6l/100km); even when not driving carefully I couldn't get it much worse than 30mpg (9.4l). However, I'd rather recommend the newer 140PS 1.4 engine. Cylinder deactivation means it gets better economy, but still has more power and torque (250Nm), which should nicely sort out the top end. Either way this 1.4l 4 pot is amazingly smooth and refined. It saw absolutely no problems on the motorway and overtaking was an absolute breeze.

So the question still stands; this or the Golf? Is it just price? Well no. While the quality of both cars is similar these days, and the engines are...identical, the place you notice the difference is in the handling and the interior. The Golf is undoubtedly the better handling car - noticeably more sporty and direct where the Audi feels more relaxed and cruiser friendly. The interiors reflect this as well; the Golf's being angled in towards the driver and even the base spec cars getting the 'its a sports car, honest' flat-bottomed steering wheel. It also feels less organised and elegant, but still just as refined. The controls for the A3 all sit nicely at your hand while your arm rests on the, uh, armrest, but the Golf is more 'buttons everywhere' type thing. Both on-screen interfaces (touchscreen in the Golf, rotary control on the A3) are incredibly well thought out and easy to use, though. Even Jaguar can't get that right.
The quality in the cabin on this however is amazing. The wind noise is...wait what wind noise? The tyre roar was almost a bit loud because of the lack of any other sound, but its easily forgettable.

So what would I suggest? Well it depends on who you are. If you want a more sporty car, then get a Golf and pay more for the 1.8l engine. If you want something relaxed for motorway miles, then I can't see you needing anything more than an A3 with the 1.4l engine and a few carefully chosen extras. If you have kids, get an Octavia. That even feels bigger and safer to drive.

I'm not a fan of hatchbacks; but this A3 is a car that makes me want one. If there's one thing we can learn from VW's antics; its that spending 60 billions Euros is a good idea, and not just an advantage in manufacturing costs.
 
Last edited:
Interesting to read the comparison of different cars who share a platform.

Currently driving a new Nissan KumQuatQashQai myself, will do a writeup later. It has a ridiculous amount of options though, dunno where to start really
 
Last edited:
My initial concern before driving this was the engine. 122PS doesn't sound like a lot. But if anything this (and the Golf) prove that its not how much power you have, but how it is delivered. And VW/Audi seem to have written the masterclass on this one. No turbo lag, no delay, oodles of torque anywhere you want it (no seriously it happily pulls from 30mph (50kph) in 6th gear...) - again despite a listing of only 200Nm available from 1400rpm and even a nice throaty noise when you get nearer the top, which is where you find the only slight weak spot. On a good run I was sitting comfortably at 50mpg (5.6l/100km); even when not driving carefully I couldn't get it much worse than 30mpg (9.4l). However, I'd rather recommend the newer 140PS 1.4 engine. Cylinder deactivation means it gets better economy, but still has more power and torque (250Nm), which should nicely sort out the top end. Either way this 1.4l 4 pot is amazingly smooth and refined. It saw absolutely no problems on the motorway and overtaking was an absolute breeze.

:nod: the 1.4TSI 122hp predecessor with almost identical performance is quite good already.
 
I was in Miami from Monday to Tuesday.

2013 Chrysler 200 2.4l with 15,000 miles.

Seats were ok or not worn in like they are on my Patriot. Power windows, locks, yadda yadda.

This car had a standard automatic instead of a CVT. It uses the same 4 cylinder engine as what's in my Patriot. It's still slow but, it doesn't feel as sluggish. There's still a delay in throttle response but, when you're at a light you and all your stuff are not catapulted backward because it missed the first 20% of throttle you gave it.

The ride is better in this thing. However you feel so disconnected from steering, and braking it felt like I was riding in a train car.

Interior space for 5'8" 220lbs me was good. Never felt cramped. Trunk space is decent. It's about 14 inches deeper and.... Some inches wider than the Patriot.

It's a good rental car. That's it.
 
My friend went full crazy and bought himself a '94 Toyota Supra as his first car. He wanted something special that he can build and maintain with taste and style. Forgive the photos, my potato wasn't up to speed.

IMG_20140412_110717.jpg


So, there we went on a night train up to Lapland, met the seller, found everything to be as it should and started the ~850km cruise back South. I drove the car for around 340km and got a quite good idea of what it's about.

IMG_20140412_110737.jpg


I don't understand anything about this vintage Japanese rockets other than it's automatic and has two turbos, it has been tickled and should have at least 350hp, it sounds angry and you drive it from the wrong side. I let my friend and the seller do all the Supraish talk about the engine codes and whatnot. So I had a basic idea of what I'm getting in to but my driving shift was definitely an experience. I had driven for maybe 500m before the first Toyota station wagon came by on the highway and signalled that I should give it a little more gas.

IMG_20140412_191130.jpg


Overtaking on the coutry roads is no biggie in this: kick it down and you're already going 160km/h. More entertaining than that was the noise the engine and exhaust made. As expected of a car like this, the turbo dump made it sound like it had a spring cold, the turbos sounded like they were running on squirrels and the exhaust was just angry. On the first 535km (measured with a GPS) leg of the drive, it drank a bit over 11l/100km which isn't bad as we had the summer wheels onboard and I atleast didn't think about fuel saving at all when driving :p On the highway in the end of the journey it of course drank more.

IMG_20140412_191405.jpg


So, would I want a car like this for myself? Nope. I don't like the "look at me!"-status of these old racers, I like sleepers more. It also requires too much maintenance and fuel and I need a daily driver. Like I said to my friend: the Supra is to him what a Yamaha YZF-R1 bike would be to me: a toy to use on the sunny days. The roof was also too low for a long backed person like me and my ass and accelerator foot went numb after the halfway of the trip.
 
Huh...I thought Supras were targas...was that just an option?
 
That was fortunately just an option.

A Supra TT for a first car, that is quite something. Could imagine the insurance costs for this thing are quite high for him.

Buuut ... wouldn't an NA have been better as a first car? If something goes wrong with the twins, it's gonna be huuugely expensive... especially since most J-Spec Supras have been imported from Japan with absolutely legitimate ~80k kms on the clock.

Also, it's the facelift version :| I prefer the pre-facelift. :p

But it's good that your buddy seems to know at least more than a handfull of stuff of it. Good car, one of my dreams. I hope he takes care of it! ;)

[EDIT] Wait a minute, I thought it was a J-Spec facelift, you sure it's a 94? Should be a 96-02 unless the bumpers have been changed. Can't really tell from the interior though.
 
Last edited:
You've got quite a good eye :) It is indeed a '94, only the (GD)PO before the guy from Lapland had changed the bumpers etc. It's quite a mixture of everything.

We checked an NA out also, but it just lacked everyhting this twin-turbo had. He bought it as a hobby and project, so more things prone to break makes sense.
 
A friend of mine bought a Supra like that as a first car, but a non-turbo and manual. He crashed it into a parked car while trying to be a touge warrior dorifto kingu as Supra drivers do and lost his licence pretty quick smart.

I hope your friend is more sensible :p
 
Buuut ... wouldn't an NA have been better as a first car? If something goes wrong with the twins, it's gonna be huuugely expensive... especially since most J-Spec Supras have been imported from Japan with absolutely legitimate ~80k kms on the clock.

MkIV's are mighty expensive over here so I think if he could afford to buy it, he's got the dough to keep it running aswell. And if the twins do get knackered, then you have a good reason to go single turbo :cool: And what comes to the NA supras, they're not worth the money and you basically just get laughed at by other car enthusiasts for buying one.
 
Yeah that's somewhat true, I wish more people would be more sensible towards that even if it's "just" an NA.
But then again, it's roughly 1600 kilos with a bit more than 200hp at the wheels... not faster than pretty much anything you see on the road.

I was just concerned that this might be his daily driver, since TT Supras can cost a fuckton of money. That's why I suggested NA, also because I didn't know how old he is and therefore it may get painful for this wallet. But if it's only a project car, it's totally fine. :)

Actually looking forward to here more of this! :D
 
Yeah it would be really interesting to hear how the life with the Supra goes on. They're maybe not my kind of cars, but I still have a huge respect for them. Or anything with 2JZ-GTE :)
 
Top