Help me choose a car I have no idea

sheslookinhot

Your requirements are being drip fed. Why not a sporting estate car ?

FlorayG

sheslookinhot said:

Your requirements are being drip fed. Why not a sporting estate car ?

I had one once and loved it but what to look for now?

Nobbie1967

Most estates fit in the boring category, but Renault are usually quite interesting

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202410165271426?journey=PROMOTED_LISTING_JOURNEY&sort=relevance&twcs=true&searchId=63353bbb-491a-490e-aa4b-14e7078a14b4&body-type=Estate&make=Renault&postcode=sk94bg&radius=1500&year-to=2020&advertising-location=at_cars&fromsra

Northern_Wanderer

Honda Jazz are all timing chains, not timing belt, the chain lasting the lifetime of the car so no costly timing belt changes. You can fit two adult size mountian bikes in the back (seats down) with the front bike wheel offs. I could fit a single size bed frame in mine in "long mode" magic seat configuration. None of the other hatchbacks (and even some bigger cars) can match a Jazz for space. You can easily get three people in the back with loads of leg room. Low running costs, decent MPG, low insurance, very reliable. The Magic Seats are so easy to flip up or down.

I have recently been on the journey of trying to find something to replace my Jazz and been very disappointed with the other offerings. Crap boot space, rediculous rear passenger leg room, poor visibility. I was excited to go see the Suzuki Swift Sport Boosterjet, until I opened the boot (tiny) and sat in the driver seat (tiny)! Didn't bother taking it for a test drive and the insurance was group 29! All the other hatchbacks I looked at (i20, Ibiza, Arona, Bayon, Corsa, Fabia, Swift) rear seats do not go flat and just too poor on space when you've had a Jazz. Arona and Bayon had more space.

Guess what, I just picked up my Jazz Sport MK3 today! I am very happy that I get to keep my Tardis of a car with Magic Seats with as much space as I need, and I get 130BHP. I couldn't help putting my foot down a couple of times today! It sounds fab. It's a naturally aspirated engine, no turbo's to go wrong here, no hybrid/ mild hybrid batteries.....

Definitley worth a look, I don't now why Honda took so long to make an actual Sport with more power as the older models were just a trim without any extra BHP. In any case, in the 1.4L versions, you can work the gears quite hard and with a little planning ahead, to get some oomph, just not a huge amount (this was always fun for me). Sad to see my old car go actually!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwU1wKm3QUo for Magic Seat configurations.

FlorayG

Thanks @Northern_Wanderer this looks like an ideal vehicle for my purposes I'll have a look at some

diveunderthebonnet

Goudy said:

An engine's camshaft/inlet and exhaust valves are ran off the crankshaft so there needs to be a connection between the two to run them and also keep the valves in time with the pistons.

This timing is important as you need to let the air in and the exhaust out at the right time and on modern cars the valves and the pistons will usually share the same space inside the cylinders, just at different times in the combustion cycle. (an interference engine).

Over the years there have been various ways to do this.
Rods that pushed up and down opening and closing the valves is common on older engines, though the Americans still like to use this.
Cogs or gearing that connected the two together.
Thick chains, like on a bicycle.
Reinforced rubber toothed belts.

They all have their pros and cons. The Rod system usually needs more maintenance and regular adjustment, the Gear system tends to cause a whine. Belts have a shorter service life than Chains, but Chains can stretch and lose tension.

Taking power from the crankshaft and putting it through various configurations to drive the camshaft and valves causes a loss, it takes some power away from the engine but some of this loss is actually just friction.
Get rid of some of this friction and the car will more efficient, so produce lower emissions.

Some manufacturers found that if they use a rubber toothed belt and run it through the engine oil (hence the wet part) it reduces the loss by reducing the friction.

All was well and good until later in the cars life the belt started to break up.
Parts of the belt are now floating about in the engine oil blocking up various oil ways and other parts that run in engine oil, like brake vacuum pumps.
The belt may or may not snap (and pistons and valves may or may not meet) but most of the damage is done because of oil starvation, the particles of belt clogging everything up and oil can't get around the engine to lubricate and cool.

As with a normal reinforced rubber toothed belt, these wet belts have (or should have) a service life.
They need changing every some many thousand miles/years service.
Some manufacturers have lowered the interval and some have introduced a belt inspection because of this issue, some have done sweet FA as it's often a problem that fails outside of the manufacturers warranty period, ie your problem not theirs.

As these belts are wet, in oil, inside the engine, it more difficult and time consuming to replace them even if they don't cause you any trouble. It often costs £1000 plus to replace them on something as basic as a Ford Fiesta.
A dry belt is external from the engine oil though it may be under a cover, so is far easier and cheaper to replace, often just a couple of hundred quid.

Why they fail like this?
Well, it's usually been blamed on the customers missing oil changes or using the wrong oil. (no surprise there).
In reality it's a good idea badly executed.

The engine oil picks up all sorts of nasties as the engine runs, metal particles, combustion by-products, even moisture and it appears the reinforced belts might not react to these particularly well and the material breaks down.

Some belts have been redesigned or made out of slightly different material, but the risk is still there and if you can avoid it, all the better as the consequences are very very costly. The fix is often a new engine. 
 

The Ford with the cut-outs in the pistons were a god send for snapped belts ,my Ford P100 had this type of engine,you could jump the belt off when the engine was running and it would do no damage ,time the engine up ,re-fit the belt and away you went ,shame the body of the van was not as reliable.

Goudy

Yes, these types of engines are called non interference engines. The pistons and valves don't share the same space, ever. Anything happens to the belt and it just coasts to a halt and no damage.

Most manufacturers seem to have stopped making them. Mainly because they have found economy and emissions improvements by revising the cylinder heads to include various forms of variable valve timings, more valves per cylinder and altering compression ratios. Instead on designing new engines, they revised older ones to meet the regulations.
Fiats great little FIRE engine went the same way around 2011.

If I have the choice I prefer a chain over anything else but I wouldn't let the lack of one put me off a dry belt, though I'd steer well clear of a wet belt.

Chains do have some potential issues.
To get less losses some have fitted lighter, less robust chains or actually fitted substandard chains (like VW did a while ago). It's common to have a duplex chain, these had double links, like two chains running side by side, though some are single linked these days to help save some of the losses.

Tensioners can wear and chains can stretch over time which tend to knock the valve timing out a little.
They can also create a bit more swarf in the engine. Small particles of metal can get knocked of the chain and sprockets tend to wear and it all ends up in the engine oil. 

Most are "for life" but in reality they would probably need some attention at one point or another on high milers or poorly serviced cars.
Some do have a service life, though that is generally much higher than a belt and cost a bit more to replace than a belt.

onomatopoeia99

Audi RS6?  Massive boot, petrol, quick enough to be interesting.

FlorayG

Thanks everyone for input. Currently considering Honda or Volvo I think, mid-size vehicle with a bit of 'sporty'. Might have to spend a good bit more then!

Iceweasel

Good luck in your quest.
I totally misunderstood your requirements and how you judged cars.
Unlike the thread title I think you have some very strong (fixed) ideas.
The two you are now considering are to my mind quite boring utility transport - much like what you have been driving for the last 10 years or so.
Each to their own.