Best (Nearly)New Smallish Car for around £6000...? Opinions

AdrianHi

standupguy wrote: »

VW Polo or Golf everytime
Image, reliability, quality, resale value

Ditto or a Fabia if you want something cheaper that holds it's value just as well.
If you can get an Astra dirt cheap it might be worth considering.

adamtoyne

Whats dirt cheap?

AdrianHi

adamtoyne wrote: »

Whats dirt cheap?

On the basis an Astra's value drops much faster in the first year than a Golfs and then a little bit faster after that, if an Astra is of interest make an offer than brings your depreciation losses in line with the Golf. If you can't get that deal walk away and get a Golf.
You can use the following 4 year depreciation chart Golf vs. Astra to work out what the losses are. Bear in mind the yearly values are trade in and not purchase prices.
http://www.whatcar.co.uk/depreciation-index.aspx?MA=&MV=&ED_ADD=&RT=0&ED=50216&ED2=&ED3=44867&ED4=0
So Astra starts at 12915 (assuming no discount)
Year 1 loss 5759
Year 2 loss 1287
Year 3 loss 961
Year 4 loss 779

Gold starts at 12755
Year 1 loss 3848
Year 2 loss 1683
Year 3 loss 1163
Year 4 loss 1059

So here we see that get the first 2 years of depreciation out the way and the Astra is getting a lot cheaper, where the Golf isn't bad value new / nearly new but still has a lot to loose year 2, 3 and 4 so is not so good value. The Golf gets good value again when it's around 6 years old where it's depreciation will slow right down but the Astra depreciation will be faster.

So the cheap Astra of the above model would be one up to 2 years old but what ever it's age only pay 50% of original list price. Sometimes you can find 1 year olds with almost 50% off at car supermarkets and brokers - that's the dirt cheap Astra.

adamtoyne

Thanks for that. I'm starting to think that a golf looks like a relatively safe bet.

Does anyone have any reasons why I should avoid any of the cars on my shortlist or those mentioned? So I can't start narrowing down before going for a couple of test drives.

Thanks

AdrianHi

Once you get past the depreciation issue, which means out of that list a VW Golf, the next consideration would be how well the car is likely to serve you. JD Powers customer satisfaction surveys are a reasonable guide. If you took the attitude that you want something that comes at least in the top half of the rankings table everything on your list except the Golf is eliminated and then you might want to consider Skoda Faibia or Octavia again which are Polo and Golf underneath and under the bonnet anyway and also hold their value well.
Then also consider Mazda 3 and Honda Civic the Japanese manufacturers who do well on the JD Powers survey and produce cars that hold their value well if not quite as well as VW and Skoda.
Based on depreciation and therefore cost and customer satisfaction I'd suggest a short list of:
VW Golf
Mazda 3
Honda Civic
Skoda Octavia

kaja86

This thread has been so helpful to me.
It has given me other ideas that I hadn't considered!

Are Skoda not a bit naff or has that changed??

Inactive

kaja86 wrote: »

Are Skoda not a bit naff or has that changed??

Changed years ago, part of VW these days, an excellent value car, my local police force use them, amongst other makes, a local bobby told me that they are far more reliable than any of the others, including Volvo's, Saab's etc.

AdrianHi

Inactive wrote: »

Changed years ago, part of VW these days, an excellent value car, my local police force use them, amongst other makes, a local bobby told me that they are far more reliable than any of the others, including Volvo's, Saab's etc.

These days we could consider Skoda's to be like Audi's only cheaper, less interesting to look at but more dependable and reliable. Skoda, Audi, VW and Seat all share the same engines, chassis gearboxes.
Skoda is topping the customer satisfaction surveys these days.
On the downside, Skoda is no longer the budget choice, your paying main stream family car prices for something that's a bit on the dull side to look at. Past that beyond criticism.

anewman

kaja86 wrote: »

Are Skoda not a bit naff or has that changed??

Skoda are now wholly owned by VAG (VolksWagen Audi Group) and are often little more than a VW with a Skoda badge on it at present.

But Skoda have never been naff, even before any VW involvement. People just thought it was funny to poke fun at them - it's more badge snobbery than that they were crap cars - more a my car cost £10k, and yours only cost £5k, so mine's better than yours sort of thing. The old Skodas with rear engines are gaining quite a popular following, see https://www.skoda-forum.com Also they are one of very few car manufacturers to have a history of making cars for over 100 years, and they also used to have a great reputation in rallying (but no longer seem to be involved in it).

The Skoda Felicia is often claimed by sellers to be a rebranded VW Polo to try sell them for more money - but it was just an updated Skoda Favorit so was all Skoda design, with the option of a 1.6 or 1.9d vw engine, but they're still good cars. In fact, some VW Caddy vans were Skoda Felicia box vans with a VW badge on, so VW has sold rebranded Skodas with VW badges on, but I bet few people advertise that fact when selling them.

VW are so great that their improvement to the thermostat housing on the felicia, by changing it from Skoda's cast alumium to plastic, means these are often a point of failure on those cars when they were fine before. Many also claim the "VW improved" body work was more prone to rust. Windscreen seals are also believed to be more prone to failure with VW's input.

So to sum up, Skoda have never been more crap than other cars, it's simply snobbery - and the sun doesn't shine out of VAG's tail pipe.

AdrianHi

anewman wrote: »

Skoda are now wholly owned by VAG (VolksWagen Audi Group) and are often little more than a VW with a Skoda badge on it at present.

But Skoda have never been naff, even before any VW involvement. People just thought it was funny to poke fun at them - it's more badge snobbery than that they were crap cars - more a my car cost £10k, and yours only cost £5k, so mine's better than yours sort of thing. The old Skodas with rear engines are gaining quite a popular following, see www.skoda-forum.com Also they are one of very few car manufacturers to have a history of making cars for over 100 years, and they also used to have a great reputation in rallying (but no longer seem to be involved in it).

The Skoda Felicia is often claimed by sellers to be a rebranded VW Polo to try sell them for more money - but it was just an updated Skoda Favorit so was all Skoda design, with the option of a 1.6 or 1.9d vw engine, but they're still good cars. In fact, some VW Caddy vans were Skoda Felicia box vans with a VW badge on, so VW has sold rebranded Skodas with VW badges on, but I bet few people advertise that fact when selling them.

VW are so great that their improvement to the thermostat housing on the felicia, by changing it from Skoda's cast alumium to plastic, means these are often a point of failure on those cars when they were fine before. Many also claim the "VW improved" body work was more prone to rust. Windscreen seals are also believed to be more prone to failure with VW's input.

So to sum up, Skoda have never been more crap than other cars, it's simply snobbery - and the sun doesn't shine out of VAG's tail pipe.

Mmmm, OK so reliability may have taken a turn for the worse, but VAG sourced more modern engines are considerably more refined, better performing and more economical that the original Skoda engines. The general refinement and quality of materials has come a long way under VW too.

I recall all too well the 1998 Skoda Felicia 1.3 I once had as a loan car. It had an old push rods and tappets engine under the bonnet. The previous time I had an engine like that under the bonnet was when I had a 1977 Ford Escort over 10 years earlier. Slow and thirsty at 33mpg. It actually used more fuel that the direct injection Mitsubishi 2.5 V6 I was driving at the time. Decent enough car for the money though.