£2000 to spend on a reliable runabout

Horizon81

I didn't even know they did a 1.6 petrol in the Mondeo - i certainly wouldn't entertain one. I was looking at the 1.8.

steve-L

Horizon81 wrote: »

I didn't even know they did a 1.6 petrol in the Mondeo - i certainly wouldn't entertain one. I was looking at the 1.8.

Think its just early models.....

Given your low milage though don't discount the 2.0?

Trim differers amazingly across the Mondy range..... If you find a nice Titanium spec'd it can be a whole lot of car for not too much extra? (You pay a bit more but end up with a much 'nicer' car and possibly one that was better looked after than the base model)
OK logic on that is if someone specifies the top of the range they are more likely to look after it....

I'd try and be as open vis 1.8 or 2.0 as possible as it gives you a bit more choice and the MPG difference isn't huge. Most important is getting a car for the right price (IMHO).... hence how I ended up with the saloon 330D ... simply because the price was right!

Tilt

Contessa wrote: »

I said "you" but meant "I"-my husband said he couldn't feel this but I could when I was a front passenger.
So, the difference in experience between us is due to 1) I travelled more on motorways, or, 2) at a faster speed, or, 3) my feet are more sensitive than yours!

I doubt that.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

The engines are rather crap..... and the CHG does go frequently but its not the worst thing to have to change.

ideally if buying a rover the 75D
However the only reason to mention this is the OP's preference for not buying a lot of perfectly good cars!

the engines are punchy and quite quick even the 1.4 i do like rovers ive owned a few and suffice to say you get used to the haynes manual for one to save cash.

the later end of rover models were tweaked here and there (rover did start to correct the issue of HG and were in development of a new engine design to replace that one before it went bust).

asside from the HG failures, the cams in the 2002 2003 2004 25 and 45 (ZR ZS) models are prone to cam lash wich makes a mess of them and needing a new cams and engine flush of shards from the cam lobes disintergrating into peices.

its just a car you would buy as a stop gap for a few weeks just to get you by not a car to see you through for few years.

steve-L

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

the engines are punchy and quite quick even the 1.4 i do like rovers ive owned a few and suffice to say you get used to the haynes manual for one to save cash.

the later end of rover models were tweaked here and there (rover did start to correct the issue of HG and were in development of a new engine design to replace that one before it went bust).

asside from the HG failures, the cams in the 2002 2003 2004 25 and 45 (ZR ZS) models are prone to cam lash wich makes a mess of them and needing a new cams and engine flush of shards from the cam lobes disintergrating into peices.

its just a car you would buy as a stop gap for a few weeks just to get you by not a car to see you through for few years.

Back in my younger days when cars were naturally aspirated and dinosaurs walked the earth changing the CHG was not a big deal. I guess with the injection system and electronics its all a bit more complex now (as is working on the alu engines without a proper torque wrench).
I doubt the OP would go for a ZR or ZS.....

The reason I mention it is the number that people buy when they retire and then do 200 miles a year... like my old neighbour that I used to do odd jobs for ... she had the 1.4 25 and it almost had delivery miles! Drove quite nice for a 1.4.... and they are SO cheap....

Changing the CHG on a injection car shouldn't be more than 3-4 hours though? Should it...? £2.50 for a new gasket and sticky gunk and £250 for labour?

I never owned one myself so ..... but they are cheap and plenty with hardly any miles.

reeac

Tilt wrote: »

Fiat owner here. First bought one new in 1978 and i'm now on my 14th. Only had a problem with one which was a seized turbo (can happen on any car) and that was fixed under warranty.

Here's one;

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201301044793067/sort/default/usedcars/price-from/2000/price-to/4000/model/punto/make/fiat/onesearchad/used/onesearchad/nearlynew/onesearchad/new/radius/1501/postcode/wv11ab/page/22?logcode=p

But my arithmetic says that you've only owned your Fiats for 2.5 years each [on average] so you've no experience of the older ones. Why do you change them so frequently?

mkirkby

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

I owned a fiat Tipo and it was still running on its original engine oil 200k miles later and hadn't even gone through a set of tyres.

You just cancelled the validity of any argument you might make right there!

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Everyone knows that these whatcar, driverpower, autotrader and top gear reliability surveys are all made up, they're all fabricated by jealous BMW and Audi drivers.
:dance:

Maybe; but if that's the case, I wonder why are the V40 & S40 always listed in the top 5 of most reliable used cars.


PS. Never owned a Volvo BTW

Tilt

reeac wrote: »

But my arithmetic says that you've only owned your Fiats for 2.5 years each [on average] so you've no experience of the older ones. Why do you change them so frequently?

They wern't all brand new and my current one is coming up to 13 years old.

gord115

.

Everyone knows that these whatcar, driverpower, autotrader and top gear reliability surveys are all made up, they're all fabricated by jealous BMW and Audi drivers.

:dance:[/QUOTE]

So why do Skodas and Lexus's do so well?

I bet you own a rubbish car:rotfl:

I do agree with the posters who've mentioned volvos ,my mate always has them and nothing major has ever gone wrong.