Skoda 120L Reviews

1988 Skoda 120L 1.2 benz from Poland

Model year1988
Year of manufacture1988
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.2 benz Manual
Distance when acquired120000 kilometres
Most recent distance135000 kilometres
Previous carFiat 125

Summary:

Undefeated!

Faults:

Break cylinder were damaged.

My exhaust had many holes after 17 years of using:)

General Comments:

A bit slow because of its engine and unstable on polish ruts over 95km/h.

But it's great, economic and it's structure is really really easy:)

There's no think you can't repair by your own:)

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 19th February, 2006

1986 Skoda 120L LS 120 from Netherlands

Year of manufacture1986
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 120 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.4 / 10
Distance when acquired47000 kilometres
Most recent distance62500 kilometres
Previous carSkoda 120L

Summary:

Can't live without the 120 LS, she rules!!! for ever!!!

Faults:

The front windscreen was leaking water into the car. Was very easy to fix.

Passenger side door lock broke. Replaced in just a few minutes.

Thermo switch didn't function at first, but was soon replaced by a new one.

General Comments:

I really love this car. It's so funny with it's rear engine. The sound of the engine is very special. (like a beetle).

The seats are very comfortable.

After 16 years the car has gotten a new paint (original color) and looks like new.

The 120 LS is so reliable she never lets you down.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st August, 2003

9th Sep 2005, 01:04

I agree the Skoda 120L is an excellent little car! I owned a 1983 model here in Australia where they were sold new at the time. It provided years of trouble-free motoring and was so easy to maintain. Driving the car was a real art in itself as the car has a tendency to oversteer quite dramatically- which adds to the sheer enjoyment of the driving! The Skoda was very robust in its construction and extremely economical on fuel. Happy Motoring!

1987 Skoda 120L 1.2 petrol from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1987
First year of ownership1995
Most recent year of ownership1995
Engine and transmission 1.2 petrol Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.3 / 10
Distance when acquired82000 miles
Most recent distance85000 miles
Previous carCitroen 2CV

Summary:

A quirky, but fun car. Buy carefully and you'll love it, despite the jokes

Faults:

The cylinder head gasket was blowing when I bought the car, and grew steadily worse during my three months of ownership. In the end, it was drinking a gallon of water every fifteen miles, most of which was being sucked into the engine and blown out through the exhaust.

The steering box was on its way out at the same time, leading to rather vague steering.

The brake pipes were badly corroded and would certainly have resulted in the car failing its next MOT had I kept it.

The timing chain began to rattle, but would probably have outlived the rest of the car.

General Comments:

When I bought it for £250 (from a rather unreliable local ex-Skoda dealer), I tried to stick up for it in the face of the usual anti-Skoda prejudice. Unfortunately, its reliability record seemed to justify the criticism.

However, it was not the fault of the car (Skodas of this era were actually over-engineered, if a trifle crude & agricultural). The main culprit was the price. People of limited means often bought them for the kudos of having a new car, but then had no money left to maintain them. My car came with a full service history, but this had been signed by the original (elderly) owner up to 50,000 miles - after leaving the showroom it had obviously never returned to a Skoda dealer. I am sure that I bought it in 'original' condition, even down to the original engine oil and brake fluid!Let's face it, even a VW or Toyota would fall to bits if it was never serviced in 80,000 miles!

In the end, I had it re-MOT'd by a reputable Skoda dealer (it didn't need an MOT, but it is a cheap way of getting a vehicle condition report). When I went to collect it, he made that whistling noise that only an MOT tester can by inhaling through his teeth and gave me a list of several dozen failure points. I then took this list back to the dealer I bought it from (ensuring that his showroom was as busy as possible at the time), and demanded my money back, which I promptly got.

On the plus side, the driving position was spot on, the seats were comfortable and it handled surprisingly well, despite the rear engined layout and the wonky steering.

One odd thing about these Skodas was the way that the (front) boot didn't open in the conventional way, with the hinges in front of the windscreen, but from the side. As they were built in a left hand drive country, the hinges were on the nearside, meaning that in the UK, when parked on the left hand side of the road, you had to stand in the road to load it up. Hmmm, safe (not!).

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 7th June, 2003

11th Nov 2006, 18:47

It certainly is conventional (for me since I live in Finland) which is why I paid as much as 300€ for mine:)

Average review marks: 7.6 / 10, based on 4 reviews