[Closed] VW premium quality 'myth'.

Is it not just the same with the reliability of VAG products?  They aren't as reliable as, say, Ford but everyone thinks they are.  I hate their marketing arrogance.

Did it have heated wing mirrors?

Well all the VAG group cars use the same parts bins so the quality won't change much. Funnily enough for my last 2 cars I've been looking at Octavias and ended up with Passats as they seem cheaper second hand.

I’ve had Audis and VWs for a few years now and drive a Skoda at work. Yes they share some parts but the ‘poorer’ quality of the Skoda really shows. The dashboard is softer plastic, the seats sub standard and there’s other little quirks. But if you can get one considerably cheaper then go for one.

The best thing about VWs was always the blue dials.

Then they got rid of them 🙁

Then they brought them back.

The Seat Leon is crap inside compared with a Polo or Golf, there's no doubt about from where they save the money.  Mechanicals are similar, but last gen in the Seat.

I hate their marketing arrogance.

What other kind of marketing is there?

Well all the VAG group cars use the same parts bins so the quality won’t change much.

Not for interiors they don't.

Possibly but it was more that I was expecting the specific VW brand to be superior in some way to the cheaper versions. There's nothing wrong with them but VW is marketed as a 'better' version of the others. Audi is obviously also VAG and in my opinion their interiors feel much posher. I just expected VW to be somewhere in between.

The above response was to the first poster btw. You lot write too quickly!

Leon is crap compared to a Golf? They're virtually the same, what am I missing?

Interesting the response about the Skoda seats and plastics as from first impression and therefore what draws you to or away from a car they seem very similar. I can appriciate that if you have owned the other VAG cars it's something you would be better placed to pick up. If this is the case then VW really need to create a better first impression (like they used to do) as on the strength of my research I really couldn't see the point of paying extra. I'd just get one of the properly nice brands.

Our experience at work benchmarking competitor vehicles has revealed much of the switchgear, controls etc are used across the entire VAG group so you get a perceived higher quality user interface in the cheaper models (SEAT, Skoda), the differences are then the quality of materials, levels of sound deadening, quality of inter layers, quality of plastics etc and the money being spent in areas that 'most' customers value (armrest cofort/enhanced surface finishes etc). Wrapped console sides are more premium than plastic but the VW plastics are a higher grade and a different grain so although still plastic, they are more premium than SEAT or Skoda.

Yeah it's a bit of a myth these days, they're not bad cars as all, but the lines aren't so clear any more.

Truthfully, VW isn't meant to be premium, that's what Audi is for. It was meant to be:

Premium / Executive: Audi

Middle of the road. Quality, but not flash: VW

Sporty and exciting: Seat

Robust and good value: Skoda.

But, in reality what they're for is this - customer is looking for a medium sized family car, they've got 1 option from Renault, 1 from BWM, 1 from Mercedes, 1 from Ford etc etc etc and then VW Group offer 4 options, they effectively sell the same product in 4 different styles to get more market share.

They didn't invent this, that would be the Americans again, really there's only 3 major manufactures in the US, Ford, GM and Chrysler, but they each have had loads of different sub-brands over the years, some they got from buying smaller manufactures over the years (like VW did) some by just inventing them, so you've got Dodge (Chrysler) Pontiac (GM) Lincoln (Ford) etc etc etc.

As for VW Group, they've largely given up their original niches, and actively compete with each other so the group sells more cars as a whole, so Skodas can be quite posh these days and Seats often the cheapest version, VW make cheap cars and very expensive ones and Audi makes small (but expensive) ones.

They're trying to move away from the old "Oh it's a VW with a Seat badge" type thing anyway, instead of a single chassis design for say the medium hatch segment (Golf, Leon, Octavia) they now have a single chassis design from everything from the UP to the Superb which can be tailored for whatever they need - FWD, 4WD, even mid-engined apparently, all from the same basic design.

My last 3 cars were a Saab 9-3 (55 plate), a Mondeo (57) and now a Passat (61 plate) - in order of poshness of interior, they probably go Ford - Saab- VW. The Mondeo was a nicer, smoother drive, better suspension, nicer interior, bigger, than the Passat (but it was a petrol and did 35mpg.)

I don't care enough or spend enough time in my car to let it bother me, of course, but yeah, Ford if I was picking again.

BMWs are also very overrated interior-wise IMO, but I suspect they drive nicer. I hired a Skoda a while ago and that was like a cheap version of the Passat.

My Triumph 2000 in 1985 was nicer inside than all of them though.

Not for interiors they don’t

Yes they do, all the switches are the same base part with sometimes different switch caps, gives them enormous quantities of scale that allows them to do higher quality parts on the lower cost variants. There are a myriad of 'hidden' interior components, some are used from SEAT Mii all the way through the VAG range to Audi A8.

Admittedly a lot of the carryover items are within the body construction/chassis/powertrain and the mechanical fixings - nuts/bolts/clips

Never understood why people are that bothered about what the inside of their cars look like. As long as they are functional hopefully you'll be looking out the windows than at the inside!

Mine's only used to transport bikes, so gets covered in mud and oil and crisps and drinks cans and all that, so it just has to be robust. I'd give the Passat that accolade 🙂

Not entirely sure why Sbob keeps spamming car threads but there you go.

Thanks for the replies. I get the whole chassis thing and sharing platforms but I guess what I'm getting at is I expected VW to be somewhere between Audi and Skoda/Seat but leaning more towards Audi due to reputation and cost. It actually seems that they're basically a 'slightly' better (but not on first impression) Skoda/Seat. They might use a higher quality scratchy plastic but it's still scratchy plastic. Even my Ford does a better job of covering the cheaper materials up and I wouldn't expect that to be the case.

Anyone wanting any proof just go and poke around at the materials used in the T-Roc!

YES! I didn't realise the blue dials were back! Must be pretty recent - my 65 plate Gold didn't have them. I've got a Mini now anyway.... much faster!

Never understood why people are that bothered about what the inside of their cars look like.

What's wrong with wanting a nice place to be?  Do you have wallpaper in your house?

My house is an undecorated mess cos I don't sit there looking at the walls do I. (Unfortunately, this is true)

The most important thing about a car's interior level is obviously the sound system. I've just remembered, that's why I like my Passat.

On the blue dials thing, that's a good example of how they used to be better than their obvious rivals. The Golf I used to get a lift in had them and as daft as it sounds it made it feel much plusher than my Focus. The air vents were flasher too, just little things like that. The current cars seem create no such image and from my admittedly limited experience feel of no better quality in the main touch points.

The most important thing about a car’s interior level is obviously the sound system. I’ve just remembered, that’s why I like my Passat.

Seats, even though I can’t see the one I’m sat on as it’s behind and under me not out of the window but it’s nice to sat comfortably while staring out of the window.

Never understood why people are that bothered about what the inside of their cars look like

It's never bothered me when I'm driving.......but I am registered blind.

As long as the engine is quiet enough to allow me hear the screams then i'm quite happy.

Never understood why people are that bothered about what the inside of their cars look like

Me neither! Usually ends up trashed from bikes/mud/kids anyway.

Maybe it's because there's so many traffic jams these days that people start looking around their car interiors and scratching the plastics so see what quality they are?

Yes they do, all the switches are the same base part with sometimes different switch caps

Different switch caps.. so different then.

They introduce different stuff at different times across the marques, and you get different equipment options too.  And the designs are different. Skodas from the period of my Passat are ugly as hell to my eyes, the VWs were much better.  Skodas are now better than they were but so are VWs.

I test drove a newer Seat when I got my VW, it had an older engine and was less refined all round.  However that was a long time ago, so no idea what it's like now.  My Dad's recent Golf was a bit smarter than my mate's recent Superb, but there's not a lot in it.

Not sure if Skoda have sorted it out recently but although my Octavia was built using the same VAG parts bin the quality of finish is way below the same age VW/Audi equivalent.

The paint quality in particular is shocking - so thin it has rubbed through to the undercoat on the door seals, rust coming through all over the place. The worst area is the sills where the stone guard doesn't go as high as on the VW so as soon as the paint chips you get rust and paint peeling - what a mess. My 20 year old Fiat has way less rust and better paint than the Skoda...

As long as the dual controls work, I'm happy 😀

I disagree, I find Skoda's and Seats definitely and noticeably lower quality than their equivalent VW model. I get to drive these cars reasonably regularly as hire cars and Skoda's and Seats definitely have a lower quality more plasticky feel. I'm more surprised by the comments that the Focus is considered lower quality to a Golf. I actually think the latest Focus is pretty much, or as near as damn it, on par to the latest golf in terms of interior finish and material quality. It drives nicer for sure and has more comfy seats. I think you can spec up a Golf to a higher level than a Focus at the tope end of the model range, but at the mid range level I'd happily have a Focus over a Golf. The only thing that might sway me towards a Golf are the residuals.

Some years ago now, a friend was talking about an article he'd read in a motoring magazine where they'd taken apart a VW and the equivalent Skoda. Their conclusion that the Skoda was actually better built, possibly because VWs are built in Germany where labour was expensive and they had to rely more on automation, while the Skoda was built in the Czech Republic where labour was cheap so they had more people able to spend more time and attention on each car.

Like for like can often get skewed in these tests and even more so when you are looking at different versions of similar models across the different brands - particularly with your mates/colleagues vehicles.  Your German manufacturer's interior is based on function first and foremost - though the new A-class has gone up a notch in the "snazzyness".

I went from the previous iteration of Octavia VRS estate to the newer iteration (but not latest) top of the range Passat and it was a step-change in quality.  I also looked at as close as I could get equivalent in Superb and A6 and the Passat was very clearly in the middle.  But once you factor in outgoing models versus new models it all gets skewed.  The T-Roc may not deliver interior quality equal to the Polo or Ibiza say, but its a funky Polo and the cost uplift they probably think is justified in the design.

My thoughts, not necessarily what Mr VAG thinks.

I bought into the VAG quality myth and all the hype around Skoda Octavia VRS's. What a complete let down it was.  Handling was below par but could be improved, most the bits could be taken from a Golf or Audi TT. Interior noise from poor seals and lack of sound proofing. Leaks, see previous comment on seals. Interior trim squeaks, Skoda uses lots of push fit metal clips into the body work cut outs, VW and Audi have a plastic collar on the body work cut outs to prevent metal to metal contact. Rear wiper fail, common problem but design not improved to prevent failure. Electrical gremlins from bulb failure when they were working to random reboots of the hifi. MPG no where near advertised and never got close even when driven extremely carefully.

I came to realise my mistake and regretted selling the Mondeo Mk3 which was built better, more economical and far comfier on a long drive even though it had a 100k more miles on it.  Skoda and Seat may share components with VW and Audi but you're an idiot to think you're getting the same quality.

As for the overall VW quality they are trading on their past greatness. I would now say they are no better than any other manufacturer now.

Reliability surveys are all very well but based on samples and owner declared experiences. The data from the French equivalent of the MOT is centralised and the percentage of cars that fail the test badly enough to have to be given a retest a pretty good indication of quality. The Sharan and T5/6 are on the "worst" list as are a variety of Seats. If your car isn't there it's not one of the worst.

http://www.fiches-auto.fr/articles-auto/fiabilite-des-marques-automobiles/s-383-controle-technique-les-pires-autos-contre-visite.php

And the best cars:

http://www.fiches-auto.fr/articles-auto/fiabilite-des-marques-automobiles/s-382-controle-technique-les-meilleures-autos.php

Op.

Your impression of VW is from around 20 years ago. At the time there was a very big difference between a VW Golf and other cars in it's class. A Passat of a similar age was a vastly nicer car than a Mondeo.

BUT, everything has moved on. Car makers have had to up the game to supply a product that is as good as some cars from 20 years ago, others haven't had much to improve on or are feeling the costs are prohibitive to make their offerings substantially better.

Car quality has moved on vastily since the late 90s to early 2000s. Back then some cars would struggle to make it to 10 years old without being a wreck. Within 5 years lots of makers had had a seismic shift in quality and the differences had narrowed considerably.

Never understood why people are that bothered about what the inside of their cars look like.

Everyone's different, I think the exterior of my car is gopping, but the interior is lovely, comfy leather seats, brilliantly tactile steering wheel, it's also got a great music system. I don't care what it looks like outside really, other than it's easy to find in the car park, it's got the bike carriers on the roof.

Some people want a cool exterior, some to impress others, some to, I don't know, look back longingly at when they're heading back into their house, some people only care how fun it is to drive, some people only care how fast it's could theoretically be, or rather only how theoretically faster it is than their neighbours / mates. Some people only care how little it will cost them to run, some how 'green' it is.

My Mum, she likes red ones, my daughter only likes my Wife's old Astra, no one knows why, but she's only 3, we changed the Astra when she was 18 months old, but she misses it terribly.

2018 Leon Cupra 300

2018 VW Golf R

Not much in it, but I think the Golf eeks it

The paint quality in particular is shocking

That seems to be pretty common with modern cars IME.  Pretty much everything I've driven in the last 15 years seemed to be able to be scratched by direct sunlight.

Not entirely sure why Sbob keeps spamming car threads

Apologies for "spamming" you with my single, light hearted post.

As it happens I love motors, especially big loud fast interesting ones so I'm not entirely sure why I'm here either.

In answer to your OP; you're comparing dull cars with other dull cars, so yes they are similarly dull. People pay premiums to keep up with the Joneses because they are also dull, and probably shop in Gap.

No wallpaper in my house.

Perhaps it's a matter of opinion and it's OK to not agree?

Millions of folk think Cold Play and Ed Sheeran are top quality, or that Greggs is as good as any other bakery, or that Rapha clothing is worth the extra £.

VW vans are certainly much nicer to drive (Mercs aside)

the percentage of cars that fail the test badly enough to have to be given a retest a pretty good indication of quality.

Really?

The serious issues that plagued the early Passat B6 body shape (oil pump and injector failure) would not have shown up on an MOT, because they resulted in possibly catastrophic failure and expensive engine work in between MOT tests.

the percentage of cars that fail the test badly enough to have to be given a retest a pretty good indication of quality.

It’s a pretty good indication of cars not looked after.

Crappy paint may be a result of weight saving and use of water-based paints for environmental and health reasons. My Skoda is painted in the same silver they use for scratch cards and is pock-marked with stone chips, though in fairness it is fifteen years old and still running. That Audi engine must be doing something right. Most cars have galvanised body panels too, so paint has less of a job to do. The only rust on my car is where it has been repaired - obviously not that well.

Don't read french but is that data at all normalised ?

If not it's even less than useless as an indication of anything other than an indication of the number of each vehicle sold.

It tells you very little. Could be down to tyres, emissions or anything that they’ve failed on.

I'd be very wary of buying one after the trouble my parents had with their 09 Passat and the whole emissions "fix" and associated problems with egr, dpf, etc, after that. Having said that I just bought an old polo 1.2 banger... and it has the worst engine I've ever driven, even worse than a corsa.

Is it a myth or have others just upped their game?  The likes of Hyundai and Kia have raised their levels significantly in the last 5 years for example.

Also how do you judge quality?  By the feel of the plastics or just how they look?  Mechnically?

I've currently got a 63 plate Fabia (SE, so only 1 up from base spec) which the basic design goes back to 2007.  My previous car was an '05 Fiesta which was from a similar design period.  My experience of the Fiesta over 8 years of ownership was that although on the surface it looked more premium than the Fabia it was far from that in reality.  I've owned both cars from new so I can compare both after 70k of abuse by me:

Fiesta:

* Exterior trim was loose - B-pillar trim had to be glued back on, grille rattled due to broken clips, front bumper inserts fell out.

* Interior trim rattled like hell

* Driver's seat release broke so you couldn't get in the back (3 door).

* Gearbox had failed at 7k, fought to get it replaced on warranty.

* Central locking would occasionally unlock itself 2 seconds after you locked it for no reason.

* Headlight beam adjusters failed every MOT as they were made of a really cheap, brittle plastic.

* Paint was covered in little stone chips that had started to rust.  It also had loads of mall scratches from people brushing against it etc.

* Suspension components were shot (bushes, ARB mounts) after 50k.

* Front springs would snap every 20-30k.

*Steering wheel had signs of heavy wear from 60k.

* When replacing the front brake discs and pads at 60k all the fittings were rusted, discs were stuck on and it basically needed a rebuild.

Fabia:

* Droplinks were replaced at 15k under warranty due to manufacturing fault as part of service.

* Interior has 1 minor rattle if it's cold from the centre air vent but that's probably due to the phone mount I installed.

* 1 stone chip on the bonnet with no sign of rusting after 3 years (chipped down to the galvanising).  Rest of paintwork is pretty much unmarked.

* Just changed the discs and pads and they came off easily with all the bolts and fixtures in great condition.

* Has flown through every MOT, haven't even had a failed light bulb yet!

* Interior looks like new and after a quick clean and hoover looks just like new!

So on the surface the Fiesta seemed a more quality car and the motoring press said so at the time.  My ownership experience was that it was skin-deep and it was knackered at 70k, keeping it going to 130k was expensive and it looked like it had done that mileage.  The Fabia on the other hand still looks like new, drives like new and has a solid feel to it that means I have every faith in it going on for another 70k easily.  One of my colleagues has a '58 plate Fabia and that is exactly the same as mine after 90k, looks good and no rattles or annoyances.

People focus too much on the looks of a car these days and ignore the long term ownership issue that can crop up.  I'm guessing that's due to the leasing model becoming the main way of car ownership these days.

From my experience (admittedly not statistically significant) VAG Group cars are well engineered and built to last a lot better than Ford.

My SEAT Alhambra has lots of VW stamped interior trim parts if you look hard enough.  A quality well screwed together car which when buying I thought looked half a notch up on the VW equivalent.

Thanks for the input. My view of VW is probably 20 years out of date but from how the press and public seem to bang on about them I expected the gap to be as wide.

It’s important to point out I am specifically talking about the current model of everything, brand new and in the showroom. I can appreciate that paint finish will vary and refinement can only be determined by driving each one, which I have not yet done, but I think initial impressions are very important. Put it this way, I will not be getting a current VW whereas I might get a Seat. I am also interested to see what the upcoming focus   has to offer against the competition.

Saying all that VW know how to make a steering wheel which is obviously a key touch point. Not as good as the one in our 1 Series but very nice. If only they could cover up a bit of the acres of scratchy plastic!

Also how do you judge quality?  By the feel of the plastics or just how they look?  Mechnically?

All those for me.

and the same huge amount of scratchy plastic around the transmission area

The single worst idea ever.

All my Skodas have had plastic scratchy dashboard fascias. As soon as you'd dust them with even the finest clothes - you  get marks.

Same with the transmission area. Glossy awfulness.

I'm happy to say this is the only issue I've had with my Karoq, but was the same for Yeti and Fabia.

So nearly new Range Rovers and Mercedes classe S are the most neglected cars, Drac?

Molgrips, you make a fair point.

So what did they fail on then Edukator as that graph tells us bog all?

Also how do you judge quality?  By the feel of the plastics or just how they look?

Both.  I have owned an Aygo for 7 years and it is a good example of the cheapest interiors you can get.  It is horrible, especially around the heater controls where some odd whitish plastic has been used.  They even saved money by having a completely glass rear hatch door which is the only bit that bothers me as it seems prone to things smashing through it when loading the car up to go to the tip.

However, it does a constant 55mpg however you drive it, is great around town and has been the cheapest car to run I have ever owned (tax, insurance, servicing, tyres etc,.).  I don't care about the quality of the interior.

I can’t comment on VW but I went from previous gen A4 sline estate to current gen Octavia VRS estate and I would say that there’s not that much difference in the interior quality. You do get the sense that the Audi is trying a lot harder to be give that premium, over-engineered feel. But because of this there is less space inside what is a similar length vehicle. I am sure it is also a lot heavier. I prefer driving the Škoda.

Truthfully, VW isn’t meant to be premium, that’s what Audi is for

VAG Group probably say that (or at least Porche) but then Skoda and Seat have to sell cars or their management gets sacked.

It's like the old ads for Gold Blend coffee .. apparently one of the most successful advertising campaigns ... who doesn't want to buy into James Bond.... ??  They gained a big market share so great success for Gold Blend .. of course then the people at normal Nescafe all got sacked (presumably) because their sales were down because Gold Blend took their market share.

Skoda/Seat have targets ... Their top management won't give a monkeys how many cars VW sell or don't.. only that they reach their targets.  If they can steal a sale from Ford that is no different to them from stealing a sale from VW.

Perhaps referring to VW as premium is the wrong phrase. Premium end of the middle of the road stuff might be better. Either way, their pricing and reputation suggest they think they're a cut above Ford, Seat, Renault, Peugeot, and all. From my limited investigations it seems they've become complacent or are attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes.

They might feel more quality but the reliability of VAG group cars is waaaay overstated... They might have been better in the 80's and 90's but it seems every broken down car I see on my commute is either a VW or Audi nowadays.

2018 Leon Cupra 300

2018 VW Golf R

Not much in it, but I think the Golf eeks it

The gap is wider IRL, the Golf has got the brilliant 'Virtual Cockpit', the 'dash' is actually just a screen, so whilst in the pic it just shows the speedo etc, it can show other things in their place if you want to. the Seat just gets normal 'clocks'.

The Golf R and Leon 300 are a good choice to give an example of how sometimes VW works. The Golf R came out in 2013, it came with 297Bhp and a 6 speed DSG box, stupid fast for a Golf 0-60 in 4 seconds or so, 165mph, real world it's meant to be as fast as the last gen Audi RS4. A few years later Seat launched the Leon 300, 286Bhp (its about 300ps hence the name) so for whatever reason VW group pegged the Seat just behind the Golf R.

The Golf got updated last year, power up from 297 to 306, the new 7 speed DSG box, the 'Virtual Cockpit' and other things, about the same time Seat got it's engine upgraded to the old R spec of 297Bhp so again, a little behind the Golf.

None of this makes any real economic sense, all the money in cars is in the development, not the production, VW Group has already spent the money to make a reliable engine make 306Bhp - and make no mistake, whilst some parts will be different, it's the same basic engine and no they don't have a pile of the old ones laying around.

It will actually cost them more to produce 2 slightly different versions of the same engine (you could argue more than that, there's a load of Audi, Skoda and Seats that use the same 2.0 TSI engine making anything from 220 to 306BHP) than one - not the reason why they do that is they can justifiably claim that the Golf is worth £5k more than the Seat because it has all the newest stuff, even though it costs them more to produce the 'old' stuff alongside it.

Why? Because if you're in the market for a really powerful hot hatch you've got options from BMW, Mercedes, Ford, Audi, VW and Seat - and VW Group makes 50% of them - it's a good way to increase market share.

Coming from a 6 year old 100k + F11 5 series into a new Skoda Superb, without a doubt, the Skoda feels significantly 'cheaper', basically, everywhere.

But then that's probably to be expected. The Skoda new was nearly £10k less than the BMW. I would put the finish of the Superb more on a par with an E91 3 series.

That's said, I wanted something cheap on a PCP for 3 years, that's hopefully reliable & has enough, in terms of spec and size, so it fits the bill in that respect. And judging by the amount of base spec Superbs being used as taxi's, I'm hoping it's a good choice 🙂

It will actually cost them more to produce 2 slightly different versions of the same engine

Well in the diesel world, the engine is actually identical*, you just get a different turbo and injectors and clutch to go with it.  I have a feeling the profit margin is greater on the higher power version.

* I think, anyway

Well in the diesel world, the engine is actually identical*, you just get a different turbo and injectors and clutch to go with it.  I have a feeling the profit margin is greater on the higher power version.

* I think, anyway

In the BMW diesel world its quite a bit more than that.(its the same block but way more differences what's plugged into the block) ... or some enterprising person would have worked out how to made a x25 into a x30...cheaper than buying the x30.  I did look in some detail 2-3 years ago but don't remember the detail, just that it was way not economic.

However I think even small changes must end up costing more to produce when it's highly automated (on top of the possible difference in cost of the parts)... is that 0.1% or is it 1% really don't know and I have doubts over how accountants calculate it vs engineers...

In my own work I see lots of touted standardisation and automation benefits that accounting see... but us engineers find quite the opposite.

Just to point out the picture of the seat dash is from a fr not a cupra 300

back to the OP you're missing nothing. My last car was a Seat Mii Sport a nice, cheap little runabout that gave me 40k of faultless motoring.

My current car is a VW Up GTi which I got 4 months ago. For every practical purpose there's nothing in it, it's the same car. Same seats, same body, same boot space, same headroom, same switches etc etc.....But the VW has a turbo engine, nicer wheels, tartan seats and a body kit and I'm a sucker so I got one.

If Seat had a Cupra version of the Mii I'd have got that without any question. It's all bloody marketing in the group but they are all decent cars.

Have to add the Up does make me smile when I drive it, so there's that.

It’s all bloody marketing.

Ultimately this is the bottom-line .. or do I mean ultimately it's the bottom-line that matters.

Whoever it is who'd bonus and job depends on selling Seat or Skoda is a different person and each branch has to compete with PSA or Ford or ...  so there really is no room to listen to some corporate VAG marketing and instead they each do their own.

Each one wants to create a set of packages that as many people as possible will buy at a price.

I really think it's THAT simple....

Well there clearly is some co-ordination. Seat don't make £70k cars with 3L diesel engines, nor do Audi make basic 10k runarounds, because the brands are targed.  See also Toyota and Lexus.

my new Passatt GTE is miles ahead in quality, feel, driveability and useability than the Ford it replaced which was absolutely awful in every respect and the worst car Ive ever owned. My car before that was the first shape Hyundai i30 and that was really well built inside, almost on a par with the VW and actually much better than the Beemer that preceeded it

The virtual dash i n the VW is brilliant,a really nice thing to look at and fiddle around with, and I'm amazed with the 1.4 petrol engine, even without the battery assistance

Touch screen entertainment system and sat nav is so much easier to use than my mates Audi's fiddly little dial

"Well there clearly is some co-ordination. Seat don’t make £70k cars with 3L diesel engines, nor do Audi make basic 10k runarounds, because the brands are targed.  See also Toyota and Lexus."

Yep...classic marketing. It's called segmentation. Also the Seat and Skoda's will be based on the previous generation VW/Audi's. The tooling to manufacture these cars costs millions of pound of investment, so giving them a life extension to go on producing cars with minimal change/modification means the unit cost is dramatically reduced.

I've never driven any Skoda or Seat that feels in the same league as their equivalent VW/Audi.

Good point on the competition catching up. They have. I've been most impressed by some the Korean cars I've driven - easily in the same league as Skoda's and Seat's and better warranties too, though I think their purchase prices have crept up to similar levels these days, but that reflects the improvement in their quality.

"Touch screen entertainment system and sat nav is so much easier to use than my mates Audi’s fiddly little dial"

Don't agree. Hate touch screens in cars. Horrible to use when driving with little bumps and undulations in the road means you often miss the button you're after. Also you can't use them without using them. Once you're familiar with proper tactile buttons and knobs then you can operate them without looking at them - touch screens require you to take your attention off the road. T

I'm also a knob man myself. I find flat areas with no upstanding features difficult to get right. I have to look away from the road to see if I've got it right. Much better if you can feel that with your fingers.

Can’t say I have that issue with mine, you soon learn where to press. Of course there’s also the functions on the steering wheel so not much of a need to use them anyway.

Yeah I’ve yet to find a ford that seems as well made as a VW, they’ve upped their game mind but still not as good.

I’ve been most impressed by some the Korean cars I’ve driven – easily in the same league as Skoda’s and Seat’s

I was flying up to Glasgow weekly a while back.  I got in a lot of taxis.  Many were black cabs, but of those that weren't most were VAGs and most were really pretty nice.  Including the one that had done 140k miles in 9 months, driving 23 hours a day!  However things like Hyundai and Kia were usually pretty knackered in subjective terms.  Anecdotes of course, just throwing some in there.

Interested to see this keep going. As mentioned, I have not seen the cars running so cannot comment on the electronic dashboards or nav but imagine the vw/Audi ones are very tidy. Saying that I have experience of bmw systems so can’t imagine they’re any better so am still disappointed with the finish of the vw’s compared to the competition and sister brands.

25 years ago VW-Audi dealerships were the norm, my Audi 80 was in the same showroom as a Polo. Around this time Skoda settled on a partnership with VAG and the showrooms were eventually split by brand onto different sites

Audi, VW, Seat and Skoda build various models in the same factories, so manufacturing-quality for those models should be similar. The VIN number includes the manufacturing country and factory if you want to see for yourself

As far as premium quality is concerned the truth is in the eye of the beholder, and how you value design, different materials and a different interface. I dislike the design of BMW interiors, but is that a quality issue?

Interesting about Beemer. My 25 year history is Passat-93-A6-A6-V70. My V70 has been away in hospital for the past few weeks after some jessie decided he wanted to be in my lane... with me still in it.

As a replacement car, I had an 800 mile S class first (Lordy knows why/how). Of course it was very nice but felt a bit plasticky (Japanese even) inside with lots of brushed chrome plastic trim edges. Very nice but I wouldn't buy one if I was in the market for a plutocrat barge. I had it replaced with a 5 series estate which compared to my history above, is a bit dog shit.

To be fair, its the 4 cyl 2.0 diesel so it feels rough and underpowered compared to the usual 6 or 5cyl 2.5L plus injuns in the other cars but the interior is just ordinary. When I've looked at pics of beemers when changing cars before, they've always looked 'quality'. The reality of this one, is it doesn't look or feel it day to day. On the strength of this, I wouldn't choose one over a Mondog and it won't be on the list when the Vulva is changed.

Also the Seat and Skoda’s will be based on the previous generation VW/Audi’s. The tooling to manufacture these cars costs millions of pound of investment, so giving them a life extension to go on producing cars with minimal change/modification means the unit cost is dramatically reduced

Comments like this in a lot of cases are wrong.

Our Ibiza (12 plate) was the first car in the VAG group to get that chassis platform.

And while i can't speak for the entire range, the Leon gets virtually the same design/features as the Golf - stuff like the multi link rear suspension that is on the Golf GTI is the same as on the Leon - admittedly, lower versions in the range get a simpler set-up but I think that is the same for the Golf.

Yes, there are differences but to imply that the Seat or Skoda is basically behind the times and using previous gen VW/Audi tech isn't really true in most cases....

I recently changed from a 63 Focus ST (after a succession of Fords) to a 17 Seat Leon Cupra 290 DSG estate, having looked at and driven a Golf R or two.

There is pretty much no difference in the quality between all three cars. There are aspects of the Focus that I'd say were better quality than either the Leon or the Golf.

Anyone that pays the £5-7k premium for a comparible Golf R is just in it for the badge or the aesthetics in my opinion. In real world (not track days) driving the Leon is just as good, if not better. However, if I'd not really wanted an auto I'd have got a newer ST estate.

Did it have heated wing mirrors?

He said premium, not luxury. That special flying shoes spending.

My old Ibiza (03plate) had heated wing mirrors... 😁

They didn't fold though...🤔😱