You'd probably get one for not to much more than the list price of this car but when you consider discounts on both vehicles there is a £5k difference. Worth every penny but not comparable vehicles. I bet the Seat gets closer to its quoted mpg. Also its all about in gear acceleration, that's what matters, who floors it from the lights? 335d smashes most in that category and that's the real world performance you notice. I have a 330d because at 30k miles a year the extra bit of economy is worth it for what I feel is pretty unnoticeable difference in real world performance. I have Z4m coupe, 12 year old one. 335d is quicker than that, but obviously nowhere near as fun.

Honestly think I'll swap to a C class estate next they've caught up so much this generation.

You can't get the BMW in manual anymore and the autos are 8 speed (therefore shorter gears) so the in gear acceleration is hard to compare but the BMW is faster from about 15mph onwards.

BMW offer huge deposit contributions if getting on finance this brings the prices down to low 30's.

Not flaming, but genuinely curious about what is good about leasing a car. I live in Zone 1 in central london - walk to work, hence I ditched my car when I moved into the central zone. It can take forever to get past Tower Bridge sometimes, the A14 is my nearest ring road out of town, but if I'm heading west, forget it. Trains are much easier.

That said, I've got another little place out in the country. I go there at weekends (on the train). Its great, but a car down there would be useful. I might buy an old run around, but what are the benefits of leasing. Clearly I could google, but please encapsulate your positive (and negative!) experiences of leasing a car for x years, and I would be very grateful. Cheers

By the very fact you've already said "an old run around" this deal probably isn't for you.

However, are you considering a brand new car with a fairly high depreciation rate for your "country run around"? If yes then this deal might be for you! Let us know if yes and then I/someone can explain further the advantages/disadvantages of leasing or try googling "what are the advantages of leasing a new car".

Cupra is 0-60 in 4.9, the 335d is 6.1. What are you smoking son?

I think you should check again as you are WRONG the leon 5.8 seconds and the 335d 4.8 seconds (tourer) 4.6 seconds (saloon) .

Well you're trying to compare apples with oranges there. If you compare the estate versions of both, the Cupra ST is 4.9, and the 335d Touring is £12k (40%) more expensive (comparing list price).

We are talking hot hatches here as well by the way. And this is 2 litre Seat vs the BMW 3 litre. ALTHOUGH YOU WRITING IN CAPS MUST MEAN YOU ARE RIGHT.

Yes as posted above, IMG Seat in Warrington are doing this (10kp/a) on 1+23 @ £259/month (advertised £249+£10) + £178.80 admin fee. Total £6394.80.

I only needed 8k p/a, and got my local dealer to include delivery and almost match the IMG Seat price, on a £256.81 1+23 deal, no admin fee. Comes out at £6163.44 - and if I go over, excess is charged at 8.4p/mile.

The OP's deal is good, but if you shop around you can knock a few hundred off.

No it means the figures you are quoting are utter rubbish the seat is slower even the 4 wheel drive version is slightly slower.
You should get your facts right before accusing me of “smoking" the seat is slower and much, much less classy.

The model this thread is about does 60 in 5.8 that's a fact.

Why are you are now talking about a different model? a desperate attempt to be correct, even the ST derivative is slower than the 335d as stated.

Your correct I am comparing apples and oranges as the BMW is a executive saloon whereas the Cupra is a chav chariot.

You are correct with everything you say (figure wise) other than I think you're a bit harsh calling it a chav chariot. I haven't driven one but the 335xd is supposedly (according to people I have spoken to) a bit sloppy on the suspension when being driven hard due to the M Sport suspension being unavailable on xdrives, and that the 330d M Sport is a lot more fun as long as you're not racing off the lights. I did nearly order one though.

I have a company 535xd which is a great car but would agree that it can be wollowy if driven hard due to the sheer weight but is truly awesome in a straight line.
The 335d on the other hand I had as a courtesy car whilst mine was serviced and it was much better at handling and even quicker than mine.
I really enjoyed driving it, my only gripe was it had a mechanical handbrake, something I haven't had for about 10 years.

Quality deal. To put into perspective im paying £1k more over two years on Golf R lease, 5k miles a year. This is practically the same car but does not have 4WD. Golf R has save me save me 4WD which only intervenes when you lose grip, not on all the time.

Can't really justify owning such a beast so just wondering if any offers around on the 1.4FR?

Best I've seen is £175 a month (6+23).

Had one for 2 months until 4 lowlifes broke into our house and took the keys to this and a Subaru. Got the Subaru back (Tracker as standard), Cupra was used by armed robbers and hasn't been seen since.

If you get one, beef up your security. It looks like the gangs used to targeting Audi/VW have this in their sights too. Either one gang is travelling, or there are a few. Ours were 2 of over 30 taken in Sheffield in a short space of time. Turned up in a white Audi Avant (not certain but thought to be A6) with 4 people.
In the space of a few months, spates of break ins taking VAG cars have happened in the following usually a couple of weeks in each and then onto the next town/city. Look at the stolen car groups.

Bradford
Leeds
Manchester
Sheffield
Birmingham
Coventry
Nottingham

In terms of the car, i had some mixed feelings. It was stunningly quick for a FWD, but struggled for grip and unless you turned off Traction (partially, seemed to still be active) control every time, it was always braking wheels at the slightest loss of traction. Speed built extremely quickly once you are off the mark, i had non-dsg and once you passed 50-60, it just went like a rocket.
The biggest pain for me was lack of a proper hand-brake, which i never got fully confident in, it seemed to be inconsistent so you ended up say on the footbrake too often.
Lane assist was useless (seat blames our poor markings), but then only tried as a novelty, wouldn't use it really.
Be prepared for the car to panic if you overtake etc flashing red 'crash warning' lights with annoying regularity.
Computer seems incapable of measuring time - after an hour of driving, it would say 5 and drop average speed accordingly.
Economy was better than expected if you were sat at 50 in traffic on a roads and average speed motorways.

Music player was annoying - no album skip via wheel controls- only one track at a time so basically useless without using touch screen. Shame given the capabilities.

android auto great for google maps navigation.

Wont get another, but mostly due to theft risk. I had to admit i was disappointed overall.

I would consider that a plus.

Electronic handbrakes are prone to failing.

I've done well over 150,000 miles in cars with electric handbrakes not one problem.
A traditional handbrake is a waste of space and effort.

You can argue the same about a pedal clutch, but I'd still have one over an automatic. Each to their own.

Again not had a clutch for over 10 years. Auto boxes are more reliable (apart from rubbish DSG) as manuals eat dual mass flywheels and require clutches.

Try adaptive cruise in a manual it's pointless.

Autos use more fuel and I like to change gear when I want to. I never had a failed DMF or clutch. Again, each to their own.

Hello,

Thank you very much. I'm not a big car-ry guy (used to have a Mazda RX-7 which I enjoyed), and a few rentals recently have been nice (Audi A3, BMW 3 Series, Seat Leon) - I would prefer a new car, similar to the pristine rentals I was driving rather than a second hander, but I'm not sure if the cost / benefit ratio is enough in my favour for my own personal circumstances / mind set.

Do your homework, DSG on the Scirocco for example is more efficient than the manual

No its not! I had it in my Golf and it was very useful. Admittedly it would have been better if I had had a DSG box in it but "pointless" is far from the case.

I like the electronic handbrakes, the only thing I don't like is when the manufacturers put them on cars and don't put hill hold as standard on manuals. On a really steep hill I would imagine it being a pain in the backside.

DSG is sometimes more efficient, varies from model-model and box-box. The torque converter boxes are almost always less efficient according to the test figures, and in a lot of real world activites but I would hazard a guess that an 8 speed auto would be more efficient on a motorway run *in real life* than the manual which will almost definitely be lower geared.

Well if you disregard the fact it disengages after about a 20mph speed reduction.
My car comes to a complete stop and sets off again in traffic without any interaction if required way more useful.

Hill hold is done via the brake servo not the handbrake.

So the R is better on juice with a DSG?

Yes I know. My point is that with a traditional handbrake you get the control with your hand when doing a hill start. An electronic one does not offer that, its on or off, so timing letting your foot off the clutch would be very important when setting off in a manual if it didn't have hill hold. It would only be fractions of a second between stalling or not.

Yes I don't dispute that it is way more useful with an auto but its certainly not "pointless" in a manual.

All cars with electric handbrakes that I've had including manual automatically give hill hold assist as they automatically release when releasing the clutch.

My Golf did have it but my S5 (which is auto) doesn't (it's an option) and a mate has ordered a new A4 with manual and hill hold is an option which he has chosen.

Good look with DSG gearbox! the ECU failed on mine and put itself in two gears at once whilst accelerating down a motorway slip road completely destroyed the gearbox.

"Leasing typically costs you more than an equivalent loan, in part because of higher finance charges.
Once you’re in the leasing habit, monthly payments go on forever. In contrast, the longer you keep a vehicle after a loan is paid off, the more value you get out of it.
You have a limited number of miles in your lease contract, typically 12,000 to 15,000 miles a year. If you drive more than that, you’ll have to pay an excess mileage penalty of 10 cents to as much as 25 cents for every additional mile. On the other hand, if you drive too little, you don’t get credit for the unused miles.
You must maintain the vehicle in good condition, or you’ll have to pay excess wear-and-tear charges when you turn it in. So, if your kids are apt to turn the interior into a finger-painting studio or your car’s a magnet for parking lot dents and dings, be prepared to pay extra.
If you need to get out of a lease before it expires, you may be stuck with thousands of dollars in early-termination fees and penalties—all due at once. This could equal the amount it would cost had you stuck with the lease for its entire term.
You aren’t allowed to customize your vehicle in any permanent way."

It's a NO from me

I did the maths, and it gives me a big saving given my circumstances from buying new, I have a 6 mile journey on traffic free roads :-))))) At the end of the term I can give up the car, I'm not then lumbered with an expensive car that i'll have to part ex again or struggle to sell privately. Hence for me it makes sense.

Never thought I'd ever have a new car let alone something like this!! Always had older hot hatch's / performance cars (Fiat coupe turbo / Focus ST / Mk11 Gti 16v / Clio RS etc) and after expenses on these - clutch's, turbo's, broken oil pipes, new ecu's etc....the list goes on (this is the trouble with older cars if you drive them hard), this deal is costing me no more.

Mind you just looked at the front tyres.....oops, maybe need to factor that into the monthly cost!!.....

He had said "the Scirocco" not the R. But yes, (on official mpg which aren't to be trusted) the DSG R is marginally more fuel efficient.

Reliable and Audi in the same sentence? Haha

It's not a DSG it has a torque converter (it's a B9). I had a B8 S4 though a while back that lunched it's mechatronic unit, fortunately the car was still in warranty.

Yes I was merely making the point that it does depend on the particular car and the DSG box VW put in it. I would certainly agree that the R was not what they were inferring. When DSGs first came out (in Audi's) they reckoned MPG was improved on everything it was fitted to, but I think the first engine to get it was the 3.2 VR6 in the TT and A3 so not exactly frugal anyway!

That's twice now. :wink:

Hands up who on HUKD thinks leasing is a good idea? As a hint, let me state that leasing companies are hugely profitable...!

Tried to get Leicester Seat to match Seat Warrington's offer but they won't do it.

But by that measure, lease haters always go on with old bangers and second hand car dealers also make a lot of money ?!?

U need too understand, I'm entitled to a opinion and in my eyes this isn't a deal. Just cos something is cheap doesn't mean it's good value for everyone.

Child care at it's finest