New car - €29,500 - help

laurpat

Guys,

Thank you all so much for your input...

The decision is now down to two...

1 - Ford Mondeo Titanium 2.0 tdci 150ps

or

2 - Skoda Superb Ambition 1.6 Diesel

Wailin

Tough choice OP! It's a pity the budget doesn't allow you to stretch to the 2.0tdi Superb, big car like that would be a bit laborious with the 1.6 120hp. For that alone I would choose the mondeo but both very nice cars.

laurpat

Wailin wrote: »

Tough choice OP! It's a pity the budget doesn't allow you to stretch to the 2.0tdi Superb, big car like that would be a bit laborious with the 1.6 120hp. For that alone I would choose the mondeo but both very nice cars.

That's exactly my thought process on the skoda - The older 1.6 was a complete pig - I had one and it turned me of Skodas - Think it was a 105 bhp. It was hard on fuel, it was dead, it was geared all wrong...

bazz26

I'd have a 2.0 Titanium Mondeo over a 1.6 Ambient Superb any day. If the Superb was 2.0 and Style spec it would win with me.

colm_mcm

laurpat wrote: »

Guys,

Thank you all so much for your input...

The decision is now down to two...

1 - Ford Mondeo Titanium 2.0 tdci 150ps

or

2 - Skoda Superb Ambition 1.6 Diesel

The Mondeo easily.

micks_address

bazz26 wrote: »

I'd have a 2.0 Titanium Mondeo over a 1.6 Ambient Superb any day. If the Superb was 2.0 and Style spec it would win with me.

I'd agree with that. The 1.6 is underpowered in the superb

dil999

micks_address wrote: »

I'd agree with that. The 1.6 is underpowered in the superb

I have the 1.6 in the Passat. Definitely not under powered. 0 to 100km in 10.9s ( for the Superb) is more than adequate for any normal driving.

Its obviously not as powerful as the 2.0 Mondeo, But the practical difference isn't huge. The OP should consider it as one criterion. But with an horrendously long commute and 2 small kids, I would think comfort and practicality would be far more important.

bazz26

Overtaking and driveability should be considered important too. 2.0 litre will do it more effortlessly than a 1.6 in a car that size.

dil999

bazz26 wrote: »

Overtaking and driveability should be considered important too. 2.0 litre will do it more effortlessly than a 1.6 in a car that size.

I'd strongly argue, that for a car capable of 0 to 100 in 10.9s vs a car capable of 0-100 in 9.8s that the effort and drive-ability required in overtaking will be, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same.

Practicality and comfort would be much more important considerations.

bazz26

Well it depends what you are used to but I suggest you go drive a 2.0 litre for a bit, then get back into your own car and report back to us. I've driven a 1.6 120bhp Passat and it felt gutless to me. Going by your logic there should be no need for these car manufacturers to waste endless hours and money developing/offering bigger engines if there is no real difference.

dil999

bazz26 wrote: »

Well it depends what you are used to but I suggest you go drive a 2.0 litre for a bit, then get back into your own car and report back to us. I've driven a 1.6 120bhp Passat and it felt gutless to me. Going by your logic there should be no need for these car manufacturers to waste endless hours and money developing/offering bigger engines if there is no real difference.

I have driven plenty of more powerful cars. Great if you want a bit of fun zipping (safely and legally) around winding country roads. The more powerful car is great fun.

I get the impression though that's not the priority for the OP. For normal driving, the power difference has no practical advantage. The OP has a significant daily commute and a few kids. Comfort and practicality are the priority. If the boot won't comfortably fit a couple of buggies and the kids other paraphernalia, The extra .2 of a second saving going from 100 km/hr to 130km/hr on a motorway won't really matter too much.

micks_address

dil999 wrote: »

I'd strongly argue, that for a car capable of 0 to 100 in 10.9s vs a car capable of 0-100 in 9.8s that the effort and drive-ability required in overtaking will be, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same.

Practicality and comfort would be much more important considerations.

I've gone from a 1.6 120bhp honda civic to 2 litre 150bhp Octavia.. the extra bhp definitely adds to comfort and confidence while driving the car.

ba_barabus

dil999 wrote: »

I'd strongly argue, that for a car capable of 0 to 100 in 10.9s vs a car capable of 0-100 in 9.8s that the effort and drive-ability required in overtaking will be, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same.

Practicality and comfort would be much more important considerations.

0 to 100 tells you nothing about over taking ability. You need to look at in get acceration

dil999

ba_barabus wrote: »

0 to 100 tells you nothing about over taking ability. You need to look at in get acceration

Of course it does. It’s the specced acceleration of the car.
In fact the acceleration difference between the two cars is less as the revs get higher. So the acceleration of both for an overtaking maneuver between 100 and 130 kpmh would be very similar.

ba_barabus

dil999 wrote: »

Of course it does. It’s the specced acceleration of the car In fact the acceleration difference between the two cars is less as the revs get higher. So the acceleration of both for an overtaking maneuver between 100 and 130 kpmh would be very small.

It's not indicative of the best car for over taking unless you're in a traffic light grand prix.

In gear acceleration figures don't correspond to 0-100 in any way.

Google will help you or a site like parkers.co.uk

dil999

ba_barabus wrote: »

It's not indicative of the best car for over taking unless you're in a traffic light grand prix.

In gear acceleration figures don't correspond to 0-100 in any way.

Google will help you or a site like parkers.co.uk

Whatever you think.

The point I was trying to make, which was actually relevant to the thread was that the very slight performance increase likely has little or no practical benefit to the OP. as I said before:

For normal driving, the power difference has no practical advantage. The OP has a significant daily commute and a few kids. Comfort and practicality are the priority.

So, absolutely consider the more powerful engine, But the 1.6 in the Superb will perform more than adequately and does not in anyway rule out the Superb as a choice.

ba_barabus

dil999 wrote: »

Whatever you think.

The point I was trying to make, which was actually relevant to the thread was that the very slight performance increase likely has little or no practical benefit to the OP. as I said .

But you're wrong so it's entirely relevant to the thread

R.O.R

On the motorway the difference between a 1.6 and 2.0 diesel engine makes a huge amount of difference, especially at commuting times around Dublin.

I'm driving a 1.6 A3 at the moment and I've a choice of sitting behind trucks in the inside lane for the whole journey or dropping to 4th (sometimes even 3rd) to accelerate in to the outside lane to overtake. The mid range torque of the bigger engine makes a huge difference in this situation, even if there's little power difference (122ps A4 for example).

I've no doubt you'll be back to argue further that you are correct as you've driven a few vehicles so know much better.

Ballyv24

Is it too late to suggest the Peugeot 3008?

It is getting great reviews

Brian?

Ballyv24 wrote: »

Is it too late to suggest the Peugeot 3008?

It is getting great reviews

I fear it is. The OP has narrowed it down to 2 of the most boring cars available. I assume they’ll be painted beige.

beauf

If I was mainly on the motorway I'd test drive them both in a motorway to see the difference in engines.

beauf

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I rent cars a lot and have driven every make and model out there.

The Astra is my favourite and is within your budget

http://www.opel.ie/cars/astra/notchback/model-overview.html

I find that interesting. We have a recent astra in the extended family and while bang for buck is good,and it's fine on a motorway cruising, and I like all the gadgets. We all think the ergonomics are quite poor. It's like a driver wasn't involved in the design of it.

bazz26

Brian? wrote: »

I fear it is. The OP has narrowed it down to 2 of the most boring cars available. I assume they’ll be painted beige.

Well a 3008 or anything else on the list are hardly exciting cars either. At the end of the day it's a company car being used as a tool for the job to munch miles.

Brian?

bazz26 wrote: »

Well a 3008 or anything else on the list are hardly exciting cars either. At the end of the day it's a company car being used as a tool for the job to munch miles.

I know. But the discussion started around interesting alternatives and then settled on the 2 most predictable company car options.

It’s about what the OP wants at the end of the day. But I want a care I really enjoy owning.

micks_address

Brian? wrote: »

I know. But the discussion started around interesting alternatives and then settled on the 2 most predictable company car options.

It’s about what the OP wants at the end of the day. But I want a care I really enjoy owning.

Curious as to what your pick would be?
Thanks,
Mick

bazz26

If you drive for a living then your priorities in a car might change. Also company accountants may have more say than the driver. Mondeos and Superbs are ideal cars for that purpose the same way a 3008 will mostly be used to ferry kids to school or Tesco.

Rumple Stillson

If it was me I'd go for the Mazda 6. Best looking car and supposed to be a good drive. Solid reliability also for all those miles.

dil999

R.O.R wrote: »

On the motorway the difference between a 1.6 and 2.0 diesel engine makes a huge amount of difference, especially at commuting times around Dublin.

I'm driving a 1.6 A3 at the moment and I've a choice of sitting behind trucks in the inside lane for the whole journey or dropping to 4th (sometimes even 3rd) to accelerate in to the outside lane to overtake. The mid range torque of the bigger engine makes a huge difference in this situation, even if there's little power difference (122ps A4 for example).

I've no doubt you'll be back to argue further that you are correct as you've driven a few vehicles so know much better.

I think that says more about your driving than anything about the performance of engines. I am not getting into any arguments with you, as they are of no benefit to the OP. You keep prodding away though if you want.

laurpat

The Skoda is now an non runner - Test drove it and as many posters have referenced it's so dead.

The gearing is ok to get to 90/100KMPH but when you want to pass out, you have to drop it two gears and start praying you get past before Christmas arrives. What I'm finding with the current Mazda is that passing out is effortless. Changing down is not a necessity to pass out. The car is loaded with torque. I expect the 2.0 Mondeo to be the same.

I do like to drive a car on so that's another reason why the skoda is not an option. What's the spec on the this 3008 - is it worth a look?

I'm still fighting with myself over the Mazda 6 - I love the thing but feel silly not to change. I've a call gone into the Mazda Fleet Manager to see if something can be on the Mazda CX-5 if not, it's the Mondeo.

Rumple Stillson

laurpat wrote: »

The Skoda is now an non runner - Test drove it and as many posters have referenced it's so dead.

The gearing is ok to get to 90/100KMPH but when you want to pass out, you have to drop it two gears and start praying you get past before Christmas arrives. What I'm finding with the current Mazda is that passing out is effortless. Changing down is not a necessity to pass out. The car is loaded with torque. I expect the 2.0 Mondeo to be the same.

I do like to drive a car on so that's another reason why the skoda is not an option. What's the spec on the this 3008 - is it worth a look?

I'm still fighting with myself over the Mazda 6 - I love the thing but feel silly not to change. I've a call gone into the Mazda Fleet Manager to see if something can be on the Mazda CX-5 if not, it's the Mondeo.

Why not just get a new Mazda 6? You clearly love it.

colm_mcm

If it’s between the 6 and the Mondeo, is probably stuck with the Mazda. You know you like it.

ba_barabus

laurpat wrote: »

The Skoda is now an non runner - Test drove it and as many posters have referenced it's so dead.

dil999 wrote: »

I think that says more about your driving than anything about the performance of engines. I am not getting into any arguments with you, as they are of no benefit to the OP. You keep prodding away though if you want.

Ìt would appear our advice was correct and of benefit to the OP.

Just to second what Colm and others have said I'd go with the Mazda. Only other car that jumps to mind that's a bit left field is a 508 GT. Very nice, refined and powerful and very much over looked.

dil999

I obviously must have very low expectations about overtaking speed

I was looking at the spec of the Mondeo Titanium, and I am a little surprised that it doesn't have more from an equipment point of view. No reversing camera or SatNav.

I had a Mondeo up to recently, and a couple of thing were a little annoying about it:
The boot is badly designed. The mouldings at the back makes it difficult to get wider items in. While it is big, it's quite shallow, and you cant get taller items in with the shelf on. The shelf itself was really annoying, it kept popping out of its catches, and getting stuck on the plastic trim causing the edges to get damaged.

The inside trim on the Zetec was really plasticky, The trim on the Titanium is a little more refined. Still to me sitting in the Mondeo for long journeys was like sitting in the reception area of an office. Nice, but not very homely. I think the Mondeo is a nice looking car from the outside, but that's obviously a personal choice,

The Mazda 6 looks like a fine car and has very good reviews

dil999

ba_barabus wrote: »

Ìt would appear our advice was correct and of benefit to the OP.

Well done you.

laurpat

ba_barabus wrote: »

Ìt would appear our advice was correct and of benefit to the OP.

Just to second what Colm and others have said I'd go with the Mazda. Only other car that jumps to mind that's a bit left field is a 508 GT. Very nice, refined and powerful and very much over looked.

What are you after doing to me ba_barabus... Looks like I'm going to look at a pug tomorrow.... The 5008 also

ba_barabus

laurpat wrote: »

What are you after doing to me ba_barabus... Looks like I'm going to look at a pug tomorrow.... The 5008 also

They're nice in fairness, refined and comfortable. It'll be more refined than the Mazda but less involved. It'll depend what you're looking for in a car.

I'm currently doing high mileage and have gone for a comfortable car over a sporty one. Haven't regretted it as I'm more fresh getting out after a long trip.

laurpat

Rumple Stillson wrote: »

Why not just get a new Mazda 6? You clearly love it.

I do love the Mazda 6 - best car I ever owner simply for that engine. Interior a little dull but much more of a drivers car that the Mondeo....

But - I'd be mad not to take a change of model. That's why I'm looking at the seeing can they get me out a CX-5

Rumple Stillson

laurpat wrote: »

I do love the Mazda 6 - best car I ever owner simply for that engine. Interior a little dull but much more of a drivers car that the Mondeo....

But - I'd be mad not to take a change of model. That's why I'm looking at the seeing can they get me out a CX-5

How come? Just to try something new? I get it but the only downside is being stuck with something that's inferior to what you had and loved.

The CX-5 looks cool to be fair.

laurpat

colm_mcm wrote: »

If it’s between the 6 and the Mondeo, is probably stuck with the Mazda. You know you like it.

Colm, I think you're are you right... Now to get into the CX5.

What's your view on the Pug 508 GT/GT Line - Are they lads bang on? What's your thoughts on it?

colm_mcm

I’ve never driven a 508, was in an older one and it was nice enough. Don’t know if I’d buy one with my own money but it would be grand for the leasing company to take the hit! It has some nice novelty features. It’s not as handsome as the 6 but I get that you might like a change. Forget the 1.6 engine and only consider the 150bhp 2.0

Brian?

micks_address wrote: »

Curious as to what your pick would be?
Thanks,
Mick

Mazda 6 or Honda Accord, if they’re in budget. I also quite like any of the new Seat line up.

micks_address

Brian? wrote: »

Mazda 6 or Honda Accord, if they’re in budget. I also quite like any of the new Seat line up.

Damn shame honda stopped making the Accord.
I'd probably still be driving one

Wailin

Brian? wrote: »

Mazda 6 or Honda Accord, if they’re in budget. I also quite like any of the new Seat line up.

Honda Accord?? Don't think that fits the OPs criteria for a new company car...

Brian?

Wailin wrote: »

Honda Accord?? Don't think that fits the OPs criteria for a new company car...

Nope, it really doesn’t.

Mazda 6 so.

Brian?

micks_address wrote: »

Damn shame honda stopped making the Accord.
I'd probably still be driving one

They haven’t stopped building them, they’ve stopped selling them in Ireland though. That is a damn shame.

The 10th generation Accord is lovely. I think the 1.5T 184bhp petrol would sell extremely well here.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/2018-honda-accord-officially-revealed-news

road_high

Brian? wrote: »

They haven’t stopped building them, they’ve stopped selling them in Ireland though. That is a damn shame.

The 10th generation Accord is lovely. I think the 1.5T 184bhp petrol would sell extremely well here.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/2018-honda-accord-officially-revealed-news

It's frustrating it's not here but Honda say the volumes are too small to bother with it for Europe. It's a shame for those of us that still love a good large family car class. My opinion is they are best for economy and driving pleasure, I don't like the handling of many of the Quoshqui crossovers.

The non premium choice has reduced somewhat to the likes of Mondeo, Passat, Insignia, I40/Optima, Mazda 6, Peugoet 508. Several have abandoned the class like Nissan, Honda, and Renault. Toyota appear to be going the same way, the Avensis isn't long for this world.
I can understand it comes down to sales, and crossover/SUVs are where the money is.

Casati

I’ve a 151 Superb that I’ve been looking to change. Considered all the op considered but went with another Superb, alas the price of them well kitted in 2.0 has gone north of 40k

If I had a 30k budget I’d go with the Mondeo

laurpat

Ballyv24 wrote: »

Is it too late to suggest the Peugeot 3008?

It is getting great reviews

I called into Gowan Motors on the Navan Road today to take a look at the Honda CRV and the Peugeot 3008. It was the most bizarre experience ever.

The Peugeot Rep was helpful but made it clear that I'd really only get into a fairly base 1.6 model of the 3008. I was told I'd need to be buying two cars to avail of fleet discount irrelevant that my company has over 100+ cars. He was a nice guy but i felt very restricted in what he could do. Was very impressed with the 3008 - Check it out guys...

Then I went up to the Honda side of the dealership. I tried to speak to the rep in there, an older gentleman that will remain nameless. All I can say is that I have never been treated as badly in a showroom. I was told that if I wanted to look at the CR-V I'd have to pay full RRP. He clearly stated that there was no fleet discount and no discount available even though I was a straight cash buyer. He told me several times I was in the wrong showroom and that Honda was not for the masses... What am I missing guys? Do you need an invitation from Honda directly to buy one of their vehicles? Terrible experience from the Honda side of the garage... :mad:

colm_mcm

DOnt worry about the fleet discount side of things, your leasing company will take care of all that.

laurpat

colm_mcm wrote: »

DOnt worry about the fleet discount side of things, your leasing company will take care of all that.

We don't use a leasing company Colm - It's all done direct...