103 vs 132

[Paul_R]

Hi all,
My wife's CX9 is going. Too big (she can't park it without hitting things), too thirsty (14l/100km & 20,000 km a year equals $4,000 a year), out of warranty (father in law just got hit for $12,000 to fix a pin hole in some manifold thing that allowed the engine to over heat and crack in his Ford Ranger. I've been trying to convince her not to keep cars after warranty so this was good for me), too expensive to service (twice a year and $400 to $500 a pop at independent garage). It does have a massive 900 l boot and 7 seats (never used) and is very comfy on long motorway trips but it's going.

Anyway, we are looking at an Elegance wagon with Tech pack, memory and heated seats. Diesel is out as a lot of her driving is very short trips (school 1km away, shops 500m) with longer runs weekly to in laws and usually 2 trips interstate each year. I'm not sold on DPF longevity yet. So it's either the 103 or 132. Speed not really an issue. It's a family car, doesn't need to overtake as long drives are all dual carriageway (I have a Golf R for that sort of thing) and I'm trying to get best economy I can for this car.

The 103 has better economy on paper but I see the 132 might get better in real world. When it's loaded up it will be loaded, 3 kids, full boot, 500 litre roof box and 4 bikes on the back. Is the 103 going to achieve it's on paper economy or will the 132 be more consistent?

Cheers.

[Paul_R]

I've just realised the 132 has 'proper' rear suspension. That in itself will probably swing it so the above post is a touch irrelevant. Sorry for wasting your time.

[brad]

Surprisingly I reckon they'll both be about what the book says but I'd actually look at the 90tsi petrol. Go for a drive, you'll be surprised at how grunty they are.

Given all your reasons for changing, I'd actually go look at a Kia. 7 yrs warranty, 7 yrs capped price service. Nothing from VAG group is going to do you any long term favours with regard to servicing costs or reliability.

Also, unless there's a physical reason she can't, try & convince her to walk to the shops & school. She'll be healthier for it & so will the kids. The car will be much better too.

edit: I wouldn't lety the suspension be a game changer. I've had both (mk3 Golf with "solid" rear & Octy2 with multilink) and they both did the job. The Mk3 could be pedalled suprisingly fast on 2nd rate country roads.

Don't forget that the AWD Scout comes out in H1 next year. It might be more suited to the task at hand

[Paul_R]

Also, unless there's a physical reason she can't, try & convince her to walk to the shops & school. She'll be healthier for it & so will the kids.

Don't forget that the AWD Scout comes out in H1 next year. It might be more suited to the task at hand

They do use the bikes for school run a fair bit but not always practical and as for a weekly shop....

I do like the Scout, and my wife likes that type of vehicle too, but don't need AWD.

Cheers

[occy]

Drive them before deciding, I was planning on the 132 but got the 103 with more than enough power. Economy for your sort of driving sits around 7l/100, the 132 will be 8-9 from what I've seen

[Gerrycan]

IF I were you I would test drive and take the kids with you to see how well they fit in the back. Legroom is no problem but the width is where there may be problems especially as they grow.
How are you going to fit 4 bikes on the back? Check out the price of the tow-bar with the dealer as they are a quite expensive $1000+, That is something you can haggle over. Also the Skoda tow-bar is a detachable goose-neck which will probably need a special bike mount.
I am surprised you got as good as 14l/100 in your CX9, but don't forget the 103 and 132tsi need at least 95 octane and most recommend 98 octane. The roof box is likely to hit your consumption as well. Without doing the maths you may save $1000 a year?
The Octavia is a really good 4 person car but 5?
With a growing 5 person family I would seriously consider the Holden Sportswagon as an option, purely for the additional width.

[brad]

We do 4 bikes on the back of the Craptiva (and previous Subaru Outback) with a 4 bike version of one of these:

It's fantastic. Much better than expected.

I agree about the fuel saving - it will be minimal & any savings will be chewed up in depreciation of the new car.

Personally, when we were doing the full-on family thing, the best car we had was a Toyota Avensis Verso. Small footprint, good handler for what it was (especially on the OEM Michelin tyres) and absolute boatloads of room compared to an SUV or traditional wagon. Occasioanl use 3rd row was actually usable unlike subsequent Mitsubishi Outlander or Craptiva. We had two Avensis in succession and we usually like to play the field.

I'm not sure what the current equivalent would be.

[Antiplastix]

I test drove the 132 before buying the TDI and disregarded the 103. When I took the TDI back for a warranty item they gave me a 103 to drive, I couldn t believe how good it was ! Bigger is not always better.

[GTR27]

The 103 is a cracker of an engine. Dynos on briskoda have shown 103 at the wheels..... But most vag engines are underrated.

[Paul_R]

Thanks again for the feedback guys.
I don't get 14l/100 in the Mazda, my wife does. I get 16...

With a 50mm tow hitch 4 bikes is easy and you get swing away feature. The Occy swan neck job may need compromise ie no swing away.

Our kids are still small. Oldest is 7 so just out of booster, next one is 5 and 'cheeky' is 2. By the time next car moves on they'll be 12 down to 7 so no width issue for a while. They fit fine in the Golf using 2 child seats.

I'll look at the 103 properly. We are getting a TDI for a day next week for size evaluation. I suspect my wife will like the power delivery and may want it. That's if she gets past the DSG. The only one she's driven was the infamous Golf 118 Twincharge disaster and that was a rental. Went ok but was juddery and...well you all know where that was going.

She also doesn't get the 'it's not an auto' thing and kept mashing the throttle auto style and wondering why nothing happened and then the tyres started smoking. I've tried to explain it but she goes glassy eyed when I mention it's actually two gear boxes and you can't have first and reverse selected at the same time when stopped and therefore blah blah blah.

Thanks again

[GTR27]

It doesnt take long to adapt to a DSG. Take your foot off the brake 1/2 a second before you want to take off. The DSG7 does drive smoother/better than the 6spd one (the TDI has the 6spd one) - IMO the 6spd dsg makes the diesel feel like it has more lag than it actually has due to how the DSG works. You can learn to drive around it, but it takes a while.

[Melts75]

The Diesel/DSG combo does take some getting used to. We currently have a 125 Highline Passat wagon and have had Tiguan and Jetta prior. My wife also has absolutely no mechanical appreciation, but her right foot has learnt how to drive the things.

[Melts75]

Just some more food for thought. Both the TSI versions run the 7 speed, the Diesel the 6. The 6 speed is renowned as being a much stronger box and runs wet clutches instead of the dry type on the 7. VW group assure us that the inherent problems with the smaller 7 changer have been ironed out, but for my money you can't go past the Diesel/6 speed combo for longevity

[Melts75]

By the way, buy a Passat )

[Antiplastix]

It doesnt take long to adapt to a DSG. Take your foot off the brake 1/2 a second before you want to take off. The DSG7 does drive smoother/better than the 6spd one (the TDI has the 6spd one) - IMO the 6spd dsg makes the diesel feel like it has more lag than it actually has due to how the DSG works. You can learn to drive around it, but it takes a while.

I drove them both, hated the DSG7 DQ250 with the 132. Too many gears to go up and down when you put your foot down. The TDI with the DQ200 just surfs the torque curve.