Would you buy this car?

Goudy

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Most cars are due a yearly service and after three years an MOT. So from year three these would both fall about the same time.

By the MOT results, it doesn't look like that's happened, it appears to have been presented for it's MOT and then repaired when needed based on the results.

"Service and MOT" is usually done as MOT first, then service, fix any fails and retest.

That way, any major fails that might get the owner to just shrug and scrap an older/cheaper car are picked up before money's spent on servicing - and it only needs to be put on the workshop ramp once.

No, I service then MOT.

Here's my results which I think speak for themselves.

MOT history, Check mileage recorded at test, expiry date, and test outcome, Hide

Date tested

27 September 2023

PASS

Mileage

143,572 miles

Test location

View test location

MOT test number

8424 3960 0918

Expiry date

5 October 2024

---

Date tested

28 September 2022

PASS

Mileage

123,862 miles

Test location

View test location

MOT test number

5538 3780 8948

Expiry date

5 October 2023

---

Date tested

15 September 2021

PASS

Mileage

103,152 miles

Test location

View test location

MOT test number

2373 0065 0387

Expiry date

5 October 2022

---

Date tested

23 September 2020

PASS

Mileage

85,730 miles

Test location

View test location

MOT test number

1622 5698 7602

Expiry date

5 October 2021

---

Date tested

20 March 2019

PASS

Mileage

57,672 miles

Test location

View test location

MOT test number

1721 9821 2924

Expiry date

5 October 2020


I bought this vehicle new in 2016, it's now on 162,000 miles and not one advisory, ever.
It's due again in a few weeks, it's already been serviced and needed a new wheel bearing, which has already been done.
I have no doubt it will pass again with no advisories.

Mildly_Miffed

daveyjp said:

What engine?  If its a wet belt 1.2 puretech petrol do some research and assess if its a risk you want to take.

Puretech's an absolutely lovely little engine. It just needs to be maintained properly - right oil at sensible intervals, and change the cam belt. Like, well, every other engine ever.

2016 would have originally had a 10yr interval, but 6yr is MUCH more sensible. The first belt revision was where the rep started, but that was replaced by 2018 - but the second and now third are just fine. It's not a big job - 2.5hrs or so.
But 2016 is more likely to be a diesel anyway. Again, the 1.6HDi needs oil changing to be kept on top of to prevent sludge.

Barkin

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Most cars are due a yearly service and after three years an MOT. So from year three these would both fall about the same time.

By the MOT results, it doesn't look like that's happened, it appears to have been presented for it's MOT and then repaired when needed based on the results.

"Service and MOT" is usually done as MOT first, then service, fix any fails and retest.

That way, any major fails that might get the owner to just shrug and scrap an older/cheaper car are picked up before money's spent on servicing - and it only needs to be put on the workshop ramp once.

No, I service then MOT.

Whilst I'm sure that works for you, it makes no sense for the layperson, especially as the car gets older and any remedial work represents an ever greater proportion of the vehicle's value.

"well Sir, your old clunker needs twice what it's worth spending on it, for welding, and your brake pipes are corroded and all need replacing. Don't forget to tell the scrap man it's got new oil & filter, and the cambelt's just been changed" 

Ditzy_Mitzy

baser999 said:

Personally I think if I had £5k I’d be looking at Japanese which I believe tend to be more reliable - think you’d find more old Japanese cars on the road than French 🤔

Swings and roundabouts.  I agree in principle, in that the Japanese cars I've had have been reliable.  They didn't wear the miles that well, however, and deteriorated rapidly after a certain age; the deterioration was cosmetic in nature: fading paint, electrical maladies and interiors becoming shabby.  

The French cars I've had were both electrically and mechanically wayward.  Counter to that, they remained fairly good cosmetically and were resistant to rust.  The real difference, however, was in what they were like to drive: the French have a real talent for making a hatchback handle well.  They also design interiors nicely, at least from the aesthetic point of view, and provide suitably comfortable seats.

In recent times, I've exclusively owned Fords.  They have their downsides, but those tend to be minimal.  More recent stuff isn't as good as what Ford were making 15 or so years ago, admittedly.  

Ditzy_Mitzy

baser999 said:

Personally I think if I had £5k I’d be looking at Japanese which I believe tend to be more reliable - think you’d find more old Japanese cars on the road than French 🤔

Swings and roundabouts.  I agree in principle, in that the Japanese cars I've had have been reliable.  They didn't wear the miles that well, however, and deteriorated rapidly after a certain age; the deterioration was cosmetic in nature: fading paint, electrical maladies and interiors becoming shabby.  

The French cars I've had were both electrically and mechanically wayward.  Counter to that, they remained fairly good cosmetically and were resistant to rust.  The real difference, however, was in what they were like to drive: the French have a real talent for making a hatchback handle well.  They also design interiors nicely, at least from the aesthetic point of view, and provide suitably comfortable seats.

In recent times, I've exclusively owned Fords.  They have their downsides, but those tend to be minimal.  More recent stuff isn't as good as what Ford were making 15 or so years ago, admittedly.  

Goudy

Barkin said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Most cars are due a yearly service and after three years an MOT. So from year three these would both fall about the same time.

By the MOT results, it doesn't look like that's happened, it appears to have been presented for it's MOT and then repaired when needed based on the results.

"Service and MOT" is usually done as MOT first, then service, fix any fails and retest.

That way, any major fails that might get the owner to just shrug and scrap an older/cheaper car are picked up before money's spent on servicing - and it only needs to be put on the workshop ramp once.

No, I service then MOT.

Whilst I'm sure that works for you, it makes no sense for the layperson, especially as the car gets older and any remedial work represents an ever greater proportion of the vehicle's value.

"well Sir, your old clunker needs twice what it's worth spending on it, for welding, and your brake pipes are corroded and all need replacing. Don't forget to tell the scrap man it's got new oil & filter, and the cambelt's just been changed" 

If you take care of a car, you'll know long before it's a clunker when it'll become a clunker.

If you bother to notice, most of a cars regular service isn't changing filters oils and belts.
It's checking the condition of the vehicle.

This is usually reported as a health check and you can use this to workout what and when something is needed.

Ignore it's condition and it'll become a clunker far sooner than if you did. 

They don't rust to the extent it needs welding over night, nor to brake pipes rust overnight and your service schedule will tell you when it's belt is due.
If you know the condition of these things as the car ages, there's no surprises and they are far more reliable. 

Barkin

Goudy said:

Barkin said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Most cars are due a yearly service and after three years an MOT. So from year three these would both fall about the same time.

By the MOT results, it doesn't look like that's happened, it appears to have been presented for it's MOT and then repaired when needed based on the results.

"Service and MOT" is usually done as MOT first, then service, fix any fails and retest.

That way, any major fails that might get the owner to just shrug and scrap an older/cheaper car are picked up before money's spent on servicing - and it only needs to be put on the workshop ramp once.

No, I service then MOT.

Whilst I'm sure that works for you, it makes no sense for the layperson, especially as the car gets older and any remedial work represents an ever greater proportion of the vehicle's value.

"well Sir, your old clunker needs twice what it's worth spending on it, for welding, and your brake pipes are corroded and all need replacing. Don't forget to tell the scrap man it's got new oil & filter, and the cambelt's just been changed" 

If you take care of a car, 

You and I may, but I'd wager that the vast majority don't. All they're concerned with is ”did it pass?" and if it didn't "how much is it going to cost me?"

I'll ignore the "if you bother to notice..." comment.

Goudy

Barkin said:

Goudy said:

Barkin said:

Goudy said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Goudy said:

Most cars are due a yearly service and after three years an MOT. So from year three these would both fall about the same time.

By the MOT results, it doesn't look like that's happened, it appears to have been presented for it's MOT and then repaired when needed based on the results.

"Service and MOT" is usually done as MOT first, then service, fix any fails and retest.

That way, any major fails that might get the owner to just shrug and scrap an older/cheaper car are picked up before money's spent on servicing - and it only needs to be put on the workshop ramp once.

No, I service then MOT.

Whilst I'm sure that works for you, it makes no sense for the layperson, especially as the car gets older and any remedial work represents an ever greater proportion of the vehicle's value.

"well Sir, your old clunker needs twice what it's worth spending on it, for welding, and your brake pipes are corroded and all need replacing. Don't forget to tell the scrap man it's got new oil & filter, and the cambelt's just been changed" 

If you take care of a car, 

You and I may, but I'd wager that the vast majority don't. All they're concerned with is ”did it pass?" and if it didn't "how much is it going to cost me?"

I'll ignore the "if you bother to notice..." comment.

That's the point I was making.

This isn't a clunker yet and if you look at the MOT history that the OP posted it looks exactly like that "did it pass" sentimentality was taken.

The earlier MOT results perhaps suggest this the most. No sooner than it's out of warranty and likely out of the dealerships service department and it's next MOT has a host of items that a basic service would have picked up.

 Some even should have been picked up by a half awake driver in all honesty and the pattern does seem to repeat.

I wasn't the only one or the first to notice it, I just weighed in with an opinion, like everyone else.

At the end of the day I think the OP had already made that conclusion themselves, they just posted to confirm it.

Arunmor

I wish I was a Saint!

Herzlos

Goudy said:

The earlier MOT results perhaps suggest this the most. No sooner than it's out of warranty and likely out of the dealerships service department and it's next MOT has a host of items that a basic service would have picked up.

That's a good point - has it even been serviced since the warranty expired? I'd expect a service to catch pitted brakes, light warnings and worn tyres at the very least.  It's possible they got the MOT done immediately before a service but it definitely reads like the only time anyone looks at the state of the car is when it's in the garage. I'm surprised there weren't any MOT advisories about washer fluid levels, so at least someone was topping them up.


I'm leaning towards this car being pretty neglected which may lead to a host of other issues, and unless it's an incredible deal I'd probably look elsewhere.

As an aside, I've always got my local garage to do the service then the MOT, so that any MOT issues can get dealt with first, and so that I don't need to take the car in twice. But I've always been pretty confident it'll pass and that it's unlikely to get scrapped by a big bill.

If the car wasn't worth doing any big repairs on I'd probably get them to do the MOT first.