Vehicle engine size and running costs?

Bradfield

Hi Folks,

I have had my trusty old Rover 100 (N reg) for just over ten years. I was deliberating whether to scrap it when the next MOT is due but now I have definitely made my mind up. The engine is overheating (cause undetermined) and I am not even going to try and rectify the problem. It's time has come.

I am now looking for a new (used) car, preferring something with a more powerful engine. I am trying to work out the different running costs of various engine sizes. The most economical, it would seem obvious, would be the small engine sizes, like my old Rover, (1.1 Litre) but I think I would like to get something with a little more power in it, say a 1.4 litre engine.

I am currently researching running costs of more powerful engines as opposed to the smaller engine sizes. I have to work out fuel costs (MPG) as well as the cost of road tax and insurance.

I dont do a lot of mileage (2000 a year at most) so the impact of fuel differentials is not major, although will be an important consideration.

I am hopeful that someone on the forum who has already worked through these issues could provide me with some sort of advice, whilst I am crunching the figures on autotrader.

I have had a good solid little economic car for the past ten years but I am fed up struggling up hills under full load. I want something with a little more zip, albeit more expensive to run.
Any help much appreciated.

pendulum

Some 1.4's won't feel any different to a 1.1 (considering they'll be heavier than your Rover 100), it's not a massive jump.
You must be at least 27 to have driven the Rover for 10 years so insurance for a 1.1 and a 1.4 should not be much more, it could even be cheaper considering the funny way insurance works

Tax won't be much more
You only do 2,000 miles so petrol won't be much more

Seems like a simple decision to me
In fact you could probably justify something a lot sportier if you didn't mind spending a few hundred quid a year extra for the privilege

Chimpofdoom

Comes down to budget really.

Some cars will obvious fare better than others. If your planning another older car, then a japanese car would be better, Honda or Toyota.

Strider590

These days, most small cars are going to weigh twice the weight of the old Metro (Rover 100). Because of it's low weight, your Rover is quicker than most new cars of that engine size.

I actually saw an old MG Metro stomp all over a BMW 318 the other day, it was totally hilarious!! It wasn't even the MG Metro Turbo
I think people forget how much difference the wieght of a car can actually make.

Your best bet for general all round fuel economy would be a 1.6-1.8, anything smaller and you'll be thrashing it so hard that you'll see abysmal mpg figures.

sk240

You don't mention how much you have to spend on another car, are we talking 1K of 5K.If in the lower price bracket you could get something like a 2002 rover 25 diesel, £135 tax and easily 45mpg
Or if looking at newer cars than you need to avoid the diesels because of the particle filters that they now have to have.

Lum

The tiny engines aren't even that great for fuel economy these days. They are often underpowered for the weight of a modern car and therefore you need to rev the nuts off them to actually get moving around town, this is less efficient and increases wear.

For a modern Rover 100 sized car, I'd be looking at a 1.3/1.4 as a minimum. Petrol obviously given your low mileage, unless you plan on buying another 90s car, in which case a bit lower might be ok and I'd be looking for something Japanese, such as a Micra.

To be honest, I'd probably choose a late 90s Japanese car over a 00s car of any vintage. It'll be more likely to last.

Bradfield

Thanks a million for the excellent advice. The weight of a vehicle never occured to me as being an issue with small engines.

I am cracking on a bit (left 27 behind decades ago) so imagine the insurance would not be an issue from what you have said. Also it would seem the road tax would not be a significant issue either.

So far as the budget is concerned. I am going to limit it to about two grand: a bit more if a decent motor turns up. This is because I have to park in the street: sometimes a couple of streets away and I dont want to have to worry about it too much.

I was also thinking maybe something along the lines of a micra. Friend has one and she leaves me standing.

Also thinking maybe late 90's or so. Some of the newer ones I have looked at have massive electronic wiring and computer stuff and I want to try and avoid the main dealers if possible.

With my car usage (and finance) I need to keep my overall costs down as much as possible.

Many thanks for the advice.

Lum

The 90s Japanese stuff will be computer based, but it's really simple stuff, a couple of sensors and electronic fuel injection. You get the bulk of the benefits of moving to EFI, it is a lot more efficient than a carburettor, but you don't get the massive complexity of modern EFI systems that only really provide small gains.

That said, since you don't do much mileage, you should also consider larger cars.

May be less of an issue for 90s cars as a lot of people consider them to be useless bangers these days, but in general everyone wants small cars so you pay a premium for them. Nobody wants Mondeo-sized cars any more even though these have often had an easier life of cruising at low RPM on the motorway. You'll get a lot more car for your money.

Joe_Horner

Another thing to look at, especially given your low mileage, is a really older car. It's not for everyone BUT something like a Triumph Dolomite 1300 or 1500 could suit surprisingly well. Other unloved (and therefore cheap) but perfectly capable models include some of the 70's BL cars (Marinas, Allegros, Maxis etc) and possibly 80's ones like Maestros / Montegos (LOTS of club interest in those!). A Montego Countryman diesel estate will give you an easy 45 - 50mpg fully loaded at motorway speeds and - if you can find anyone willing to sell - seem to change hands for around the £600 mark. But it'll be higher road tax as a 2 litre.

The big thing is to avoid rust issues, but good ones of all the above are out there.

Road tax is on size, so anything 1500 or below will be 135 a year.

"Real world" average fuel consumption will reach mid-30s easily - which on 2k miles is only about £180 a year more on fuel than something giving 50mpg average (if you believe the quoted figures on moderns - in practice the difference will be much less)

Insurance will be a joke (probably under £100 for fully comp), especially if you limit the mileage to 6k or so

Maintenance / repair costs are WAY lower than moderns because there's so much less to go wrong - if you're that way inclined you can reduce them to almost nothing by doing most yourself.

MOTs are easier because there's less for them to fail on (but do find a garage that appreciates classics - national chains are a BIG no-no on these!)

Performance will be perfectly good enough to keep up with traffic, especially seeing as there's so much of the stuff now!

You'll have fun, turn heads and have people randomly coming up to you in car parks to ask you about it (ok, that one's not to everyone's liking )

If you look round you can pick one up for around the £1k mark without too much trouble.

Buying is a little more complicated than with newer stuff because you really need someone who knows what they're looking at with you, but most of the popular models have clubs that will be more than happy to advise and genuinely don't want new owners to have a bad experience.


eta: have a look round here to get an idea if anything catches your imagination. Filter by price to start with, if anything jumps out then look closer at that make / model

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/classic_cars.php?category=&make=&region=&country=1&era=7&advert_type=1&price=3&keyword=&S.x=62&S.y=17

Notmyrealname

Bradfield wrote: »

The most economical, it would seem obvious, would be the small engine sizes, like my old Rover, (1.1 Litre)

This is false. The most economical is the one that is the most balanced for the car. Take the Ford Mondeo petrol. The most economical isn't the 1.6L as its underpowered for the size of car. It is the 1.8L.

As said, you don't do much mileage so the difference between a car that does 30MPG and one that does 50MPG at current fuel costs for the 2000 miles per year will be just over £150 a year or £3 a week.

Because everyone wants small economical hatchbacks, the used prices are high. Conversely the prices for large engined mid range saloon cars drops like a stone.

That means that for say £3000 you get a lot more for your money buying a mid-sized or large car with a 2L or larger engine than you would buying a small hatchback with a small engine.

Strider590

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Because everyone wants small economical hatchbacks, the used prices are high. Conversely the prices for large engined mid range saloon cars drops like a stone.

That means that for say £3000 you get a lot more for your money buying a mid-sized or large car with a 2L or larger engine than you would buying a small hatchback with a small engine.

VERY true, however a larger engined car will take longer to warm up and short trips to the post office would do it no good at all...... In fact it'll damage ANY car, but a big car would tolerate it much less.