Kia Ceed or Citroen C4

photome

Hammyman wrote: »

Its a diesel, not a petrol. A 85BHP diesel engine isn't as bad as a 85BHP petrol engine in the same car due to the far higher torque which is lower down in the rev range.

I agree, but it also isnt as good as the 113bhp version in the same car and without the ECO badge

mutley74

10JH wrote: »

Neither are due a facelift/new model soon, so depreciation won't be too bad.

Guessing from your choices that you want 5 doors (rather than 3?).

Have you considered the new Ford Focus, the reviews are really good for it - Ford Focus on Carbuzz. Comes with loads of kit and low running costs for some of the engines.

Or perhaps the Vauxhall Astra? That has an unlimited year warranty, 100,000 miles limit.

The Kia warranty is transferable to other owners, which will help with its resale (if you sell it within 7 years!).

Not sure about the Vauxhall TandCs though.

yes need a 5door diesel which is fuel efficient and has some new mod cons such as blutooth, cruise control, front fogs, reversing sensors etc.

I seen the new Astra which is very nice car - except well overpriced IMHO and extras which i would like are treated as expensive extras by Vauxhall. Hence my options narrowed down to the new C4 or Kia Ceed (type 2). Going to visit Kia this week and do another test drive, only thing is i need to pay extra for reversing sensors, but seems in many ways a better car than the C4.

Trebor16

Have you looked at the amount of legroom in the back of the new Astra if the drivers seat is pushed back to accomodate a taller driver? Douglas Bader would be the only person who could get comfortable as the leg room is non existent.

citroennut

as can be seen from my username, i'm a bit of a fan of the double chevron!, that said i've just bought (march) a 12mth old ceed sw ecodynamic. the brief was; large enough estate for a couple of big dogs, low RFL, good MPG and fair insurance. we looked at a c3 picasso, fabia estate inc. greenline and the ceed. the fabia was good but needed the greenline to get £30 RFL and the boot wasn't quite large enough. greenline suspension setup and rear seat was dreadful and discounted, c3 had all the bells and whistles in top of the range model, but the 2yr manufacturer warranty with third yr dealer put me off after a bad experience with a c5 estate. the ceed hit all the targets £30 RFL 60mpg and £200 insurance, it's quiet, responsive and comfortable and the rear is big enough for the dogs. oh and then there is the 7yr warranty even at 18mths old, as when you buy a kia approved car they put the warranty back up to 7yrs.
just to put you in the picture; the car i changed from was a saab 95 2.3 aero HOT estate, 250bhp as opposed to 89bhp, 155mph to just over 100mph, 30mpg (careful) to 60mpg, £260 RFL to £30 and over £300 to £200 insurance. by the way the boot area of the ceed is larger than the saab! the performance of the car is excellent for an engine of this size and output and so far i'm delighted with the car and cannot fault it.

mutley74

The Kia Ceed diesel only require servicing every 20k miles (or every 12mths), whereas old versions require servicing every 12,500miles.

Wireless_2

I took delivery of a new a 2010 Grand C4 Picasso last October, not quite the same vehicle as the C4, but I did test drive the C'eed at the same time when ordering a new car.

I felt the interior of the Kia was bland, the engine very good, but the gearbox suspect when selecting either 1st or 2nd, and this was a brand new car. Being told to crunch through with a positive selection by the Salesman did cast a few doubts about long term reliability. I later found that it shares the same gearbox with the larger Karen? people carrier, and a relative got rid of theirs because they experienced a similar gearbox and felt the same about long term reliability.

I heard various stories about the GC4P as well, but I've only ever had a suspension warning during the snow last year, apparently the excess snow on the suspension was detected by the suspension sensors as a fault, but once the snow was removed, or left to melt away, the warning disappeared (so much for extensive Winter testing by the manufacturer!), I've never had a any other problem with it, and it's the 1.6 EGS version, the one everyone complains about apparently.

It works perfectly for me, and the best average mileage I've had so far for a 250 mile journey on the motorway was 68.8mpg, however, I did have a holiday in Scotland this year, four adults, 15 month old in a child seat, two large Labradors, and packed to the gills, including a 380 litre roof box, over 1200 miles I averaged 52.3 mpg, which I don't think is too bad.

Flyboy152

rexmedorum wrote: »

under the block exemption rules you can have it serviced at any VAT registered place that can show they use original parts (not sure how easy that one is for KIA).

If it is 20k 2yr vs 12.5k 1 yr, we are looking on average at 0.75 vs 1.2 services per year. Lets assume the kia costs 150 quid per service at the dealer. That'll cost you 112.50 quid per year. Now lets assume your c4 costs the same per service. that'll be 180 per year. A whopping 67.5 per year difference.......

I don't know actual servecing costs but my point is: unless there is a massive difference in the cost per service, the effect on the total cost will be tiny, and easily recouped in other areas such as purchase price

They don't have to use OE parts, they have to use comparable quality parts.

Flyboy152

mutley74 wrote: »

Thinking for a while to change car. Thinking of either
Citroen C4 Diesel 1.6 (90bhp) VTR+ or possible Kia Ceed 1.6 Diesel 2 Ecodynamics.

I am attracted to Kia by the 20,000 mileage interval and 7 year warranty. But heard from a car broker that Kia stipulate that Kia cars must be serviced by Kia dealers and they are not cheap. Anyone know if this is true?

Benefit of Citroen is there is a dealer close to where i live, so easier to organise service etc. But put off why Citroens only have a service interval of 12,500 miles pa.
(BTW i drive over 15,000 miles pa)


any advice most welcome.....thanks

I've had two year/20,000 mile service interval cars in the past and wouldn't trust them after fifteen thousand miles or eighteen months, to be honest.

Flyboy152

mutley74 wrote: »

thanks for the comparison. I guess the difference is minor and if went for the C4 i could service it anywhere and probably do not need to stick to the recommended service schedule after 3 years.
welcome any feedback/advice if anyone has looked into these models before.

Why would you not stick to the service schedule after three years? :huh: That doesn't make any sense.

Flyboy152

rev_henry wrote: »

I think its taken this 7 year warranty to start to persuade the very conservative British public that Kia, the brand they've never heard of, actually make good cars. Which they have from the start.

I disagree. The Kias of the past had been terribly unreliable and of very poor quality. They were prone to rust and were very expensive to maintain. I remember having to replace an alternator on a Pride. The price from the dealer was six hundred and forty pounds; this was twelve years ago.

The built quality was cheap, to say the least and often fell apart for no apparent reason.