Ford KA?

moonrakerz

lucy_w86 wrote: »

A friend of the family said that a KA is a dangerous car to drive. When involved in accidents, it gets badly damaged and would never recommend anyone buying one.

Sorry

I do wish people would stop spreading ill-informed rubbish like this !

If you wish to know the OFFICIAL safety rating of a car look up it's NCAP rating.
A Ka has 3 stars out of 5 - better than average !!!

From personal experience:- my daughter's Ka was rammed in the side. She was unhurt, the car was repaired.

PS: Jeremy Clarkson called this car "a happy pill" !

Stephen_Leak

!!!!!! wrote: »

If it were me I'd go for a fiesta. With just that little bit more room and a better ncap rating it's a much safer bet. Apparently, the Ka is based on a very old, dated platform. I'm not techie enough to explain but i'm sure someone who is will be along shortly....

It uses the old Ford "Kent" crossflow engine (which I first had in a Mk.2 Escort) with the usual new fangled emission control gizmos. However, it is still a very flexible and reliable (all the "bugs" have been removed, and it didn't have that many to begin with) power plant.

I've driven both the Ka and the Yaris - there was nothing wrong with either of them and the latter had all the usual modern "toys", but I have to say that I still preferred the simplicity and sheer driving fun of the Ka.

bestpud

moonrakerz wrote: »

I do wish people would stop spreading ill-informed rubbish like this !

If you wish to know the OFFICIAL safety rating of a car look up it's NCAP rating.
A Ka has 3 stars out of 5 - better than average !!!

From personal experience:- my daughter's Ka was rammed in the side. She was unhurt, the car was repaired.

PS: Jeremy Clarkson called this car "a happy pill" !

I didn't think the NCAP rating was too bad either, considering it's a small and budget car.

bestpud

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

It uses the old Ford "Kent" crossflow engine (which I first had in a Mk.2 Escort) with the usual new fangled emission control gizmos. However, it is still a very flexible and reliable (all the "bugs" have been removed, and it didn't have that many to begin with) power plant.

I've driven both the Ka and the Yaris - there was nothing wrong with either of them and the latter had all the usual modern "toys", but I have to say that I still preferred the simplicity and sheer driving fun of the Ka.

That about sums up why we are interested in getting one. I've had enough of things not working when they should with our current car and want the simple life now - a car to get me from A to B as easy and cheaply as possible!

I'm just a little concerned as my niece test drove one and said it was awful to change gears and not the nicest car to drive. My friend's daughter has one though and finds it great. Guess everyone is different, eh?

topmum

I had a Ka for 5 years and I loved it. Never gave me a bit of bother. Extremeley economical to run and a dream to park. I had to get rid of it last year as I got a company car. It had a nippy 1.3 engine, so it moved! The only gripe i would have is that the boot is a little on the small side. If I did a full weeks shop a couple of the bags had to go on the back seat.

why not take one for a test drive and see what you think?

:beer:

lucy_w86

moonrakerz wrote: »

I do wish people would stop spreading ill-informed rubbish like this !

If you wish to know the OFFICIAL safety rating of a car look up it's NCAP rating.
A Ka has 3 stars out of 5 - better than average !!!

From personal experience:- my daughter's Ka was rammed in the side. She was unhurt, the car was repaired.

PS: Jeremy Clarkson called this car "a happy pill" !

The person I was referring to assesses vehicles which have been damaged in accidents. The car which obtained the most damage in an accident was always the KA and there were many bad stories.

angelfire

hmm.. as much as you're having problems with your Mondeo, I'd be careful not to let it put you off them for life. I've had 4 and each one has only ever required new tyres and regular servicing. I do understand your issues with the running costs though compared to the ka.

That said, if you're used to driving your Mondeo i'd strongly advise test driving a ka and a fiesta before you go ahead and buy either. The mondeo is a nice car to drive, everything's set up well and in my experience (I've driven 2 mk1's, 1 mk2, and my current mk3), it's a much nicer drive than most of it's rivals - that's in it's own class. Moving from a big car like that to something really small like the ka might take a lot of getting used to. I know that when I've driven my partner's old focus for a while, as much as i've liked the nippiness, I've been pleased to get back in the mondeo, it's just so much more comfortable.

so, I'd test drive the smaller cars to see how you feel - you might not like it after the novelty wears off...

angelfire

Oops, sorry, I've just read that you used to have a fiesta before, so no need to test drive! I'd go with one of those - as new as possible. The zetec engines are pretty fab and go forever... :-)

topmum

I had an accident in my KA - the other car was written off and there was not a scratch on the KA

seftonsun

lucy_w86 wrote: »

The person I was referring to assesses vehicles which have been damaged in accidents. The car which obtained the most damage in an accident was always the KA and there were many bad stories.

Cars are meant to be damaged in accidents. Basic physics means that when a moving object hits another moving object or a stationary object the forces that are present need to be absorbed somewhere. Cars are designed so as to absorb these forces by means of crumpling and crushing of the bodywork , but without it affecting the passenger compartment. Therefore the more force that's absorbed by the car bodywork the less chance of serious injury to the passenger(s). It follows therefore that if a car is badly damaged it is possibly doing its job very well as long as the passeger compartment remains relatively intact.

So a bland comment about the extent of the damage to a vehicle is potentially not very useful. What needs to be looked at is the type and extent of the injuries suffered by the occupants. A vehicle/insurance assessor is unlikely to be in possession of this level of information.