Skoda Roomster

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
My first Skoda was a 1980 130 and athough I took some stick for owning it, it was without doubt the most reliable car I ever owned, sailed through tests and never needed anything apart from fuel, quite a few years ago I owned one of the first Skoda Fabias and it was as ugly as hell, but just as reliable........great cars if you ask me, and now have a good following.
 

skudupnorth

Cycling Skoda lover
Any Skoda will be a good buy ! Just forked out a massive £150 on my second Favorit with a boot full of spares including body panels,spare alloys and gearbox and it has tax & mot !!!! One thing I do know is it will be reliable and easy to fix IF it needs it !
 

vickster

Squire
I've got a fabia vrs estate, beefy engined, quick, good sized car. Best car I've had for ages, and I've had a few (was more costly though). £140 tax. Get 250 mostly urban miles from £50 of super unleaded. Pretty economical for 180bhp and 0-60 is 7 secs

But if tall and need drivers seat reasonably far back, you can't get the rear seats properly flat.
 
Not wanting to sound negative, there is a huge problem with this car.

Now if all the available cars of this type (MPV) were the same price, you would not buy this one. So the attraction, or at least a big part of the attraction is the low price - it is a lot of car for the money when compared to others.

BUT a car cost is not what you pay for it, it is what you lose on it over the time you have it. And to me this means it does not add up at all well. According to What Car, the Roomster retains only 32% of its value over three years. So over that time you can say goodbye to £8k +.
They start cheap but then drop more in value than other alternatives. To me that seems a very expensive cheap car.
I think others may start at a higher price and retain a greater part of it (some cars can retain up to 50% of value in three year).
 

sazzaa

Guest
I was looking at the Roomster yesterday, it's handy for space but not pretty to look at, found myself veering towards the Citroen C3 Picasso and Nissan Juke instead.
 

benb

Evidence based cyclist
Location
Epsom
Our only car is a Fabia estate, which is a great car. Small for an estate, which is good (for us)
Interested by the Roomster though (crap name!) I like the idea of getting bikes into the boot easily.
 

sazzaa

Guest
[QUOTE 2934626, member: 45"]I had a Juke a few weeks ago as a hire car. It was the most comfortable car I've ever driven, but the rear seat and boot space is pitiful.[/quote]

Really? Looked huge with the back seats folded flat!
 
But if tall and need drivers seat reasonably far back, you can't get the rear seats properly flat.

The rear seat sqaubs will lift out completely, fold down the rear backrest (minus headrests) and then put your front seat back, perfectly level rear load area then (unless you have a variable floor, but that can be removed as well) :thumbsup:

Another vote for Briskoda, been on there for years as a member/ moderator/ secretary and now honourary. Join Freedom for the best experience:angel:
 
[QUOTE 2934584, member: 259"]What Car always recommends buying cheaper cars if you want to cut the cost of motoring. Personally I couldn't give a hoot about the percentages, I'm bothered about the cost of driving. As they say:[/quote]

Ah but What Car is a magazine based around selling new cars. If you really want to cut the cost of motoring the first thing to do is NOT buy a new car!
If you do want to buy a new car then my point was really to flag up that the Roomster has a very poor residual value and so although you don't pay a comparatively high amount for it, you are hit very hard when you come to sell it. Going on Users purchase at £10k, that is still costing you £6,800 in depreciation over three years.
I would not call that cheap motoring.
What I think happens is that similar MPVs all drop at about the same rate in value so some you pay a bit more for but then get a bit more back on resale. This then shows up as a higher percentage drop on the Roomster as it started at a lower price.

I was just pointing out the cost is not the price you pay at the outset. Depreciation is a huge consideration in the cost of motoring and often overlooked.

I am one for watching the cost of motoring but in doing this I have gone to the opposite extreme. I have a dirty great E Class Mercedes estate. It cost more in fuel, tax, insurance and servicing, but I am driving around in a car that cost £44,000 and now it is seven years old I picked it up for £9k. It will only drop in value by about £1k per year now and so that small drop more than makes up for the extra other costs. I can never quite understand people wanting cheap motoring but then buying a new car. The two just do not go together.
Of course different if the car is from work or whatever. Always lots of factors to consider.
 
[QUOTE 2934640, member: 45"]A new 1.2tsi is £9990. 32% of £9990 is £3200. There is an 09 plate Roomster on the same forcourt for £6k.

I believe average residual at 3 years is 40%. A Kangoo is 35% (and falling apart at that point)[/quote]

Sorry if I sound negative, but I do know lots of people who are all happy with a car until they see what it is worth down the line. If you are buying it new for £10k then I was just flagging up what it would be worth down the line is your biggest cost. If you are happy that it is going to be worth say £3,200 as a PX then that is OK. We all think differently and you may particularly want a new car as your priority or whatever.
 

sazzaa

Guest
I have a mate who's leasing a new car for 3 years because it works out he'll lose less money that way than buying the car new and selling it after 3 years. If that makes sense.
 
Top Bottom