|
I know that the Skoda has a huge fan base but we have a had a 2015 Captur since new with the 0.9l TCe engine, now on 37,000 miles. It was serviced and MoT'd this week and there have been no issues with it all.
In terms of driving, it is fine. Although it has been driven by other members of the firm/family, I took it to London (form Manchester) over Christmas with my wife and it was perfectly satisfactory. Compared to my E350CDi it is slow, but apart from being a little sluggish off the line, it gets up to speed and maintains it comfortably.
Don't dismiss the more powerful engine in the new Duster. It may well be very good.
|
"Just one other comment, since September 2018 the (Fabia) 1.0 TSi has been 115 PS not 110 PS but the torque is identical, you would not notice any advantage over an older car."
It says 110 bhp on both the order form and on Skoda's website - but it doesn't make much difference.
That is very interesting and like you say that is what the Skoda website shows.
Going back to late November when we bought the Fabia we initially went to view the Scala which is definitely 115 PS. We bought the 1 1/2 year old Fabia at what seemed a bargain price (no regrets) and believed at the time it was 115 PS. But a quick read on the Skoda forum confirmed that since it was a Euro 5 car with no OPF it was 110 PS, the newer cars (September 2018 onward) which are Euro 6 with a OPF are 115 PS.
Now it seems all VAG 110 PS 1.0 TSi's were upgraded on Euro 6 except the Fabia, seems strange but in reality what is the point of an extra 5 PS especially when the torque is exactly the same.
It may well be that to differentiate between the more premium brands (Audi, Seat, VW) and the communist brand (Skoda) Skoda have been told to keep the badge PS at 110 despite the fact the engine is probably the same.
Surely you cannot allow the communist brand to have the same power as an Audi that is probably 50% more expensive, That would be shocking in the extreme.
But lets not forget, Skoda manufacture all the 1.0 TSi's for all the brands. I remember a question in a motoring column in the press regarding the fact that a chap had bought himself a new Audi and was shocked to find it had a Skoda engine. He was hoping to take legal action since he believed an Audi should have an Audi engine. What an idiot.
|
|
If you don't mind me asking JoeGrundy, why are you replacing the Baleno?
|
|
There is a comparison test of this Duster against an MG ZS on Auto express. They thought the Duster was best overall, but I was shocked to see it only did 29 MPG!
|
|
|
If you don't mind me asking JoeGrundy, why are you replacing the Baleno?
Thanks for the helpful comments and opinions. Sorry for the delay in responding.
I'm going through the rejection process with the Baleno because of corrosion on the roof, which I've been told will require a windscreen out and complete roof respray. I'm actually very impressed by the Baleno in general and it meets all my requirements. Had it not had this issue I would have been happy to keep it.
Actually, I've just noticed over the last couple of mornings when the car's been rained on overnight that there's an interesting contrast on part of the roof. There's a fairly definite line about where the b-pillars are. Forward of that towards the windscreen (where the corrosion is) the water is nicely beaded. The other part, not. It's almost as if the front part only has been waxed or coated but not the back. I can't see why anyone would do that but now I wonder whether the roof has had some paintwork done in the past but badly and that's why the corrosion is present. I was assured by the supplying dealer that the car had never had damage repaired, etc., but ... I think I'll take it to a bodyshop next week and ask for their opinion. Perhaps a paint depth gauge might reveal something.
Suzuki stopped selling them last year, so a replacement would be another 'used approved' one, and I've lost some faith in that designation. Also, a PCP suits me at the moment and it would be cheaper to buy a new car after discounts and interest deals, plus a longer warranty, of course.
|
|
"....I was shocked to see it only did 29 MPG."
The road test will have include performance testing so is a worst case scenario, but even so the Duster is a biggish car for a little 1.0-litre engine to pull along, so economy is unlikely to be its best feature.
If you prefer an SUV, the Suzuki suggested above is well worth a look, athough I' not sure whether there are good PCP deals on it. Hopefully Skoda will stll be doing 0% on the Fabia when you've finally rejected the Baleno - and the Fabia will give you 40 mpg in town, 50+ on a long run.
|
The road test will have include performance testing so is a worst case scenario, but even so the Duster is a biggish car for a little 1.0-litre engine to pull along, so economy is unlikely to be its best feature.
I'm don't think that explains the Duster's appalling test MPG Avant, after all, the MG ZS (also a 1.0 turbo) tested against the Duster managed 36.1 under, presumably exactly the same conditions. In fact it seems even more likely a 'mistake' was made when you consider the MG tested was actually an auto (i believe these use a t/c auto, so none of the supposed gains some automated manuals enjoy).
But ignoring this, far too much emphasis is being put on the 'size' of the Duster to be using a 1.0 turbo, when the real consideration in normal day to day use should be weight. Yes, the Suzuki SX4 S Cross i mentioned earlier is 100kg lighter (with more power), but the Suzuki (like most Suzuki's) is especially light. Compared to the average, the Dacia isn't that heavy. With a kerbweight of 1191kg it is only 46kg (about 4%) heavier than a 95PS 1.0 Polo 5 door, and nobody would bat an eyelid at that engine/car combo.
For Joe, and his lengthy European road trips, the potential problem with the Duster (VS the Fabia) would be aerodynamics. Not the size of the car, or (up to a point) the power output, or (again, up to a point) the weight, or even the amount of gears (certainly regarding economy, as the deciding factor here is how far open the throttle needs to be to maintain speed rather than rpm directly). If spending a lot of time at speed, the taller. bluffer shape of the Duster would require more power to push it through the air than the more slippery Fabia (though itself, hardly a shining example of aerodynamic efficiency).
|
|
I wouldn't disagree with you at all there, BBD: I ment 'biggish' in a more general sense than just length and width.
The Duster is a solid workhorse which clearly meets a lot of needs. I haven't driven one, but suspect it's well suited to a diesel engine wth plenty of low-down pull and better economy.
As always, this comes down to what someone wants from their car. No doubt Joe will test-drive whatever he puts on his shortlist, and hopefully he'll let us know how he gets on.
|
|
Many thanks again for the responses and useful points to consider.
I'm a bit in limbo at the moment with the rejection stuff going on. LBG are not being shall we say 'dynamic' but there's less than three weeks left of the Ombudsman's eight week limit to resolve the issue. I may need to find a replacement fairly quickly.
For the last six years I was using my old x-type 2.0d, which was very good at the long trips, so any change to a small engined petrol is a step. Have been pleased with the Baleno, though.
I did have a look at an S Cross and liked it. Problem is that it's easy for financial 'mission creep' to set in if you're not careful. A new Duster or Fabia is only about £25 a month more than the payments on the 2016 Baleno (with discounts and low rates) and seems worth it.
I like Dacia - my son has just got rid of his Sandero after buying it new in 2015. It was excellent. The only thing it needed was a new driveshaft seal - found by Dacia during service last year and fixed by them under warranty. A Duster would be ideal for local roads what with pot-holes and cow slurry and I quite like the 'anti-badge' philosophy.
Absolute mpg isn't a deal killer for me - on a 2.5k trip the difference between 50mpg and 40mpg is only 12 gallons so not a big deal. And, of course I could be more sensible and cruise at 70 and take an extra day, I'm not under time constraints.
Thanks again - lots to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
