used car recommendation

[stationairy]

hi need a bit of help

looking at buying a car, now i have narrowed it down to three and was wondering what you guys would think is best, or maybe recommened something a car a may have missed

also it you can help me with any problems to look out for on your recommenedation

looking at a year 2000 for about £2700, the three cars are a fiat brava, fiat punto and leading the way at moment rover 25

[balsingh]

All these cars lose value very quickly so you will get a lot of car for money (when compared to Astras/Golfs etc).

The Rovers are a bit dated but more reliable. I drive a Rover 400 and its been excellent. I think the spec in the Rover is likely to be better too.

The main reason for picking a Fiat is more that its the 'trendy' option, being Italian. What I do know is that Fiats are prone to electrical problems.

www.honestjohn.co.uk (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk) will have detailed info about these cars and what is good/bad about them as well as info about what is likely to go wrong with them.

Hope that helps.

[vansboy]

The Rover will have the ...Oh they've gone out of business, type attitude , from many - not really a problem, plenty of parts/garages that can fix them. Beware you WILL have head gasket problems - so check the cooling system with a proper pressure test. If it's around 38-40000 miles, it'll be on it's way out - so think about that !!

Fiat - lots are anti Fiat - not really as badf as they once were.

The Brava (assume you don't mean Bravo) is dated, slightly more, as it's been out of production for a while.It's also got more doors than Bravo. I bought one, for a customer, a couple months back 71000miles 1owner & Fiat dealer, very nice condition, £1200 - so the price you've seen is a little high, even in a dealer. Did you look at engine size here - you could get 1.6 - so higher insurance & tax.The smaller engines, need to work hard for the heavyer body.

Punto is still made - although totally new shape, comes early next year, so you've still a modern looking car.Also the 1.2 engine is cheaper on tax & pretty lively.My choice, from those 3.

Have you thought of Astra - just to add some more confussion???

The HJ link is good - check in Car by Car Breakdown page, for what to look for on all cars.

www.whatcar.com has a free valuation page, but they do seem to go at the top end of prices,

Ask again if you need to know more.

[stationairy]

so the rover a no no then as head gasket failure sounds a lot
how do i check the pressure

sorry i dont no a lot about cars

but out the lot i think i like the rover most and the prices are good from what i have seen

also your advise on a seat ibiza going to see a w reg one on saturday what i should be looking at in the car to make sure its a good one

also is a hpi check worth it if i definatly buying car

sorry for all questions

[tomstickland]

Rover K series engines can suffer head gasket problems. It's all due to the way that the engine was designed - they didn't over engineer it. Plus the coolant system design has been questioned - they designed it to warm up quickly. I read a technical article on the web all about this.

Anyway, as long as the coolant is monitored and the engine serviced properly the head gasket problem is reduced.

Should the head gasket go then they can be replaced for around £600-800.

HPi check - personally I don't bother if the car is over 5 years old or cheap to buy.

[moggins]

Fiat Punto - no question!!!

[trigger_mike]

Well Personally I Won't Touch Any Of Them, Rovers Have Head Gasket Problems As Do Puntos, (used To Work For A Motor Factors And Was Often Getting Head Gaskets And Head For Puntos, Even Late Ones) And Bravas Lose A Lot Of Money And Carnt Easy To Sell On, I'd Go For A Peugeot 206 Or Early Ford Focus If It Was My Money.

[tomstickland]

Have a look at Nissan Almeras too. Good all round cars, with Jap reliability and cheap due to noone really liking them for some reason.

[balsingh]

I'll second that ... Ford Focus.

[jjames]

Have a look at Nissan Almeras too. Good all round cars, with Jap reliability and cheap due to noone really liking them for some reason.

Yup, can never work out why people have such a downer on Almeras. They're no more bland than an Astra, handle pretty tidily and don't look too bad either. The build quality is very good, reliability impeccable and once they hit a certain age the depreciation slows to a virtual stop as well and they end up being worth more than the cars they were worth less than a few years previously. Peverse but that's how it pans out. Overall one of the best value used cars on the market.

And while we're at it the Hyundai Accent is in the same category. Plenty around, very reliable mechanically (the overall build quality is pretty good as well although the interior trim is a little flimsy if abused) and dirt cheap second hand. A better bet than a Fiat because the underlying engineering is Japanese (Mitsubishi) and very solid.

Also in the same sort of area is the Citroen Xsara (Peugeot mechanicals, reliability not perfect but better than Fiat/Rover and very cheap to buy), Skoda Felicia and Seat Ibiza/Cordoba (these three with VW mechanicals and generally solid cars).

[vansboy]

Checking the pressure of the cooling ststem, is something a garage/mechanic would need piece of equipment, to do - not hard or expensive, for them.

Your Q's answerd on HJ site, regarding Seat - fairly popular, but 'cheap' build quality.

HPI checks - £40 well spent, if buying private or from traders, rather than a garage/dealer with premisies, that you can go back & complain to!!

VB

[balsingh]

HPI Checks on the RAC websites are £24.99!!

A bargain compared to HPI and AA. In fact, when you use the RAC site, it works via the HPI site anyway except you only pay £24.99.

[jjames]

> Your Q's answerd on HJ site, regarding Seat - fairly popular, but 'cheap' build quality.

Do you mean Fiat here? I certainly see no evidence that Seats are built cheaply.

[trigger_mike]

Seats ARE Build By Volkswagon, The Built Quality Is Good As Most Parts Are Vw, If You Look On Trim It Has Vw Stamped On Them

[tomstickland]

Well VAG group build Skoda, Seat, VW and Audi on a range of common platforms. But their quality standards and components do differ accross the range. Mind you, VW are no longer the brand they once were and Skoda/Seat are pretty well sorted. I like the Skoda brand image, it's a real "if you've got a problem with Skoda then shove it up your **** because I'm laughing all the way to the bank." attitude.

[trigger_mike]

:rotfl: :rotfl: I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN, IM 25 AND QUITE FANCY AN OCTAVIA!, WOULDNT SAID THAT 10 YEARS AGO ABOUT AN FAVORIT!

[tomstickland]

I once had a bit of a "performance comparison" down an A road with an Octavia RS. That's the 1.8 turbo with 4 WD. I was very impressed with it.

[trigger_mike]

Thats the one i mean, same engine and floor plan as a Passat and Audi A4 Isn't?

[tomstickland]

Yes, VAG group reduced their platform count down from over 100 to somewhere around 20 in the last few years. I was reading an article about it.

[vansboy]

My reference to Seat, is that the brand was the 'cheaper' option, for the VW group range.

The build quality, on all of their products is, as mentioned, not what it once was.

You're certainly NOT buying a German built vehicle, in many instances.

Whether you consider that good or bad is another matter!!

Anyway, going a bit off track, but the HPI type check at the discounted rates, is certainly worthwhile.

VBcertainly

[stationairy]

hi guys thanks for all help

had a look at honest johns website and is really good

just an after thought what about toyota yaris

any other thought guys

[jjames]

Like any Toyota, get one which has been looked after and the chances are you'll have an endlessly faithful friend which will never give any trouble. Super little cars. Recommended.

[balsingh]

I looked at buying a Yaris for a my sister a couple of years back ... we ended up getting a Polo instead. The main reason was that the boot in the Yaris was way too small. Make sure you check that out when you look at one. The 1.0 engine is also completely gutless. Go for the 1.3 engine. We couldnt afford a 1.3 so ended up goign for a older 1.4 Polo instead which was more suitable.

[superscotsman]

The japanese firms use the "total quality management" system, so their cars as a rule don't break down so often. I have had cars by Rover and its precursors, and I have had trouble with every one of them.
When buying second hand, it is a good idea to go for a car with automatic transmission: it is more difficult for a previous owner to smash up an automatic box than a manual - although some people manage it somehow.

[tomstickland]

Nah, automatics are rubbish. Higher fuel consumption, expensive to fix and, most importantly, no fun to drive.

[superscotsman]

Nah, automatics are rubbish. Higher fuel consumption, expensive to fix and, most importantly, no fun to drive.

1. Automatics are rubbish.
There are some bad manual gearboxes about. But NCVT, Borg-Warner, Automotive Products, Hydromatic, Ford, Van Doorne, General Motors - I've driven them all. All the automatic boxes are good.

2. Higher fuel consumption.
Most of them have, but you have to offset that against lower maintenance costs. There are some boxes that have kpl that is almost as good as a manual box. Some of them (NCVT, for example) have clutches instead of torque converters.

3. Expensive to fix.
I wouldn't know. I've never had an automatic box break on me: unlike manual transmissions, automatic boxes are built to look after themselves.

4.No fun to drive.
I am not going to bother to reply to that.

[wazza]

mind u if u drive a lot in town where there is a lot of stop and starts when its easy with an automatic.

modern automatics are more reliable and economical due to extra gears compared to older days. check out executive cars like jags/bmw/merc with high mileage. true the mpg will be higher than a manual gearbox but is offset with ease of driving.

fun to drive, well some auto box has a manual function where u can select 2, 3 or 4th gear when u want. see jaguars gearbox for example. also some have sport function where the gears change higher in the rev range for better acceleration.

autobox like manual will last if u treat it with respect. check oil regularly. auto boxes have a dipstick under the bonnet for regular checks

if u come across a car with a auto box make sure the changes are smooth and not jerky and the gearbox oil looks clean and recent.

[jjames]

Problem with autos is that they do tend to fail as they get older. I've never owned one myself but I know people who have had expensive problems with an autobox.

It's true that manuals go wrong as well but they do tend to be cheaper to fix. As I keep my cars for a while, and treat the box with the utmost respect, I've never had a transmission fault (touch wood). The odd linkage that required adjustment over time to improve the feel, that's all (cheap to sort).

[tomstickland]

Hey, it was a personal choice thing. I want the car to do what I tell it to, not what it thinks I want it to do.

[skintchick]

Skoda!!! I have a Fabia, love it, loads of room, lots of extras, much cheaper than a Golf.

Always a manual for me. I'll change gear when I want to.

Mind you, see my sig, I am still paying for car... :( Note to self: never buy brand new again.

[highguyuk]

Having driven a Kia Sedona Automatic as a hire car with work a couple of weeks ago I will NEVER own an Automatic. Now granted, this probably isnt the best example of an automatic but I just thought that it was dangerous. Everytime I tried to acceralate on the motorway at around 65-70 if needbe it would shift down into 4th gear and lose power. Grrr

Back to the topic. Wouldnt touch a Fiat Punto after I spoke to a good friend who works at the Fiat Garage who said most of the cars they have back with problems are Puntos. At the end of the day, everyone has there own preferences. I have a Peugeot 306 which I like v.much, although I am currently looking around for a Mark IV Golf. If you can afford a Peugeot 306 I would look into it (www.pug306.net can help alot). It depends what you need to consider... tax/service costs/engine size/reliability/style/resale value...

(HDI check from RAC - This reduced further if your an RAC member?)

[tomstickland]

OK, I've had a quick look round the internet. I'm trying to find some measured transmission loss values for typical automotive gearboxes.

So far I've found this, which is quite useful:
http://www.answers.com/topic/manual-transmission

Advantages
Manual transmissions are typically more efficient than automatic transmissions. This is because manuals generally involve a clutch instead of a torque converter, which can cause significant power losses. This results in both better acceleration and fuel economy.
It is generally easier to build very strong manual transmissions than automatic transmissions. Manual transmissions usually have only one clutch, whereas automatics have many clutch packs.
Manual transmissions normally do not require active cooling, because not much power is dissipated as heat through the transmission.
A driver has more direct control over the state of the transmission with a manual than an automatic.
Manual transmissions are typically cheaper to build than automatic transmissions.
Manual transmissions generally require less maintenance than automatic transmissions.
In addition, many people feel that driving a manual forces the driver to pay more attention to the road and to other cars, making it more difficult to become distracted.
Manual transmissions use less fuel than an automatic transmission. Manual cars will do an extra 2 miles per gallon.


Assume that 2mpg is a plausible number for fuel consumption increase. Assume the average car manages 35mpg over a year. The auto version would use 37/35ths more. That's 6% more. For a much more efficient vehicle (50mpg) this number might reduce to 52/50ths, ie: 4%.

If the 35mpg car did 15000 miles per year at £4 per gallon then it'd use a total of 430 gallons per year, costing £1700. 5% of that is £85. So the auto would cost £85 extra per year to run.

In future autos defence this is interesting too: http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto497.htm

[retailwarrior]

Evening Hall

This is a first post so please excuse if I make any pho pahs.

All advice for this guy previous is ok but. Have you considered a deisel clio? Parts are dirt cheap from the scrapper and easy to fit. But the biggest plus is....you can put SVO in instead of deisel with no conversion kits or additives.

A massive saving of 50p per liter!! I have checked all the main supermarkets and Tesco do theirs for £1.25.

No it wont damage your engine as clios have bosch fuel pumps which can handle the SVO with out polymerisation. Note this only works on straight deisel models. Not with turbos or anything else fancy.

Be kind to the environment and change!

[tomstickland]

I am not going to bother to reply to that.
I'm not going to bother reply to this either.
Oh damn, I just did.

[superscotsman]

I have heard all this about automatics before. Let me see.
They take all the fun out of driving. They creep at traffic lights. They always break down. They are out of control. I like to drive properly. They guzzle fuel. The car shoots off when you don't want it to. The Merc that Princess Diana was killed in was an automatic; maybe it was automatic transmission fluid that was found in Henri Paul's blood. or maybe Henri Paul couldn't stand the tedium of driving an automatic.
If that were the case I would be facing astronomical fuel bills, huge repair bills, I can't drive properly, I would be having an accident every week, and if I didn't die in accident, I would die of boredom instead. But none of these things are true.
Funny old world, isn't it?
I'm pushing this stick about at the moment. Mmmmmmmmm, this is FUN!!!!!

[tomstickland]

Well, automatics are more complex and expensive to fix, fuel consumption is slightly worse (but with clutches it might be about the same as a manual) and they are not the choice of an enthusiast. I'm talking about driving for fun ie: balancing the car on the throttle when going round corners etc, in which case I don't want something deciding when to change gear for me.

You obviously like them and maybe they have improved a lot in the last few years.

[tipsychick]

Don't suppose anyone knows how much a W reg Golf 1.6S should be worth? Only 16,000 on the clock! HATE anything to do with garages!

[stationairy]

thanks for all help guys

now i have been to see a yaris last night going again today
what should i be looking for?
also it is a w reg with 50000 miles for £2300 is this a good deal
comes with 12 months mot and tax, 3 month warrenty and full tank of petrol

sorry i am a total novice
anyone had a yaris what they like

[highguyuk]

http://www.wisebuyers.co.uk/ for car prices

1.6 S Golf ... nice choice ;-)

[tomstickland]

s for slow I'd imagine. New Golfs are very, very heavy and the 1.6 engine struggles. We have one as a pool car at work and I've not heard a good word spoken about it. That's nothing to do with reliability, comfort or resale value. Just people's (generally youngish men) impressions of it's ability to get where they want to go.

[Smudge32]

So basically, EVERYONE has a different opinion!!

[tomstickland]

Yes, you have to make your own decisions in the car buying game. Noone makes truly rubbish cars anymore. I know people who are happy to all their own servicing etc and so they run £1000 cars on the cheap. I'm the same myself, I've never spent more than £1200 on a car in 10 years and racked up 15-20K per year.

There's 1000s of suitable vehicles out there and it's just a matter of finding something that meets your own needs, be they financial, image, running costs, driving entertainment, room, comfort etc etc. Hence the many car review mags.

[MrSmartprice]

You are probably right, no-one makes rubbish cars any more.

Not now that Rover have gone to where they belong!

[tomstickland]

Weeeeellll, even Rover didn't make rubbish cars.

[superscotsman]

Weeeeellll, even Rover didn't make rubbish cars.

They didn't make rubbish cars: they just fitted them in a rubbish way. Funnily enough, I didn't have a Rover automatic box go on me. It was the only part of these cars that didn't go wrong. It was marvellous driving to your next breakdown without having to change gear!

[tomstickland]

I read a very indepth article recently on the K series engine. Rover had a lot of talent - the K series was a very much optimised engine with a high power to capacity ratio and a high power to weight ratio. Sad really the way it's gone.

[jjames]

The K-series was so well optimised that was half the reason it kept failing ultimately. Truly impressive achievement though that they managed to get 100hp out of a 1.4 engine while Vauxhall were still making 1.4s with 60hp......

Still think Rover will make a return in the not too distant future though. They'll probably come back with imported engines mind. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on your point of view.

"No-one makes bad cars anymore"; can't agree with that. The French cars still have an unfortunate habit of breaking down, Italian ones as well. I guess it's something to do with the fact that we're all, as Europeans, subsidising these partially state-run unionised companies and they've got BL-syndrome. It's the reason I'd never, ever buy a Fiat or Renault, just as I'd never buy a 70s/80s British Leyland car.

Having driven a Kia Sedona Automatic as a hire car with work a couple of weeks ago I will NEVER own an Automatic. Now granted, this probably isnt the best example of an automatic but I just thought that it was dangerous. Everytime I tried to acceralate on the motorway at around 65-70 if needbe it would shift down into 4th gear and lose power. Grrr

Surely changing down from 5th to 4th would increase the power? If you are wanting to overtake it's safer to do so in as low a gear as you can get away with.

[tomstickland]

I know people who rant about the old Rover 214 engines. Quite a good stealth car option.

Obtaining 100BHP from a 1.4 is not difficult really. The Vauxhall 1.3 8v units from the late 80s managed 75BHP, and I managed to get 95BHP from one via a bit of cam, headwork and the usuall tuning stuff. Ultimately it's just the flow potential of the head along with how well engineered the bottom end is to cope with the rpm needed. Obviouslly the crappier Vauxhall 1.4 single point engines were rpm limited so that they could be made cheaply and last a long time.
So, I suppose I'm agreeing!

[jjames]

To be fair though I'm a great believer in "there's no replacement for displacement", and I'd rather have a larger, 1.6l engine tuned to 100hp as it is over-engineered for the job relative to the 1.4 putting out the same.

It's interesting that some very recent 1.4 engines are putting out 100hp now, it'll be interesting to see how these fare from a durability point of view.

It's one reason I'm a great fan of Nissan's engines (petrol anyway, the diesels have Renault input and have suffered as a result). The 1.5 performs like a typical modern 16-valve 1.4 (90hp), is chain-cam and generously over-engineered, with the result that these engines run for hundreds of thousands of miles, more than most others. They may not be the fastest, most frugal or even the quietest, but they run and run -- and on a second-hand purchase this is exactly what you want. Unfortunately, what makes a good second-hand buy is not the same as what makes a good new purchase (mph, quietness, speed etc) and so they don't sell too well.