New estate car - Mondeo ??

Money Shot

Going to get a new car soon, and I've decided that a decent estate car will fit the families needs best.
My main considerations in the purchase are Safety, reliability and practicality (space) rather than looks, raciness, badge or impressing anyone etc. Obviously price is a major consideration too.

I was initially going to spend the bit extra and go for the new Modeo estate, but I have been looking around, and a couple of other cars just seem much better value for money given the whole package and my needs.

Octavia estate 1.9tdi, reliable, 4 star safety rating, decent spec, large boot etc, decent price circa 24 k
Kia Cee'd SW 1.6d - reliable ??, 5 star safety rating, very good spec, Great boot space, very good price circa 23 K (also, a good 0% finance deal at present)

I know the mondeo is bigger and is a very good car, but I can't see anything that can justify the extra 5 or 6 k to me.

Any opionions welcome - or any others that I may have overlooked.

thanks

Bandara

Hi MS,

why buy new?

Have you looked at BMW/Merc estate options in the UK?

Zube

Money Shot wrote: »

I know the mondeo is bigger and is a very good car, but I can't see anything that can justify the extra 5 or 6 k to me.

The Mondeo is in a larger class than the C'eed or Octavia. If you don't need or want a car that size, don't buy one.

Meanwhile, in the class below, the Focus estate is a better match for the C'eed.

Mr.David

Well first thing is to ignore the NCAP safety ratings. They arent really representative of real safety. Manufacturers can engineer a car specifically to do well in NCAP tests which are very limited.

Ya, I agree that you should look in England for a car instead. Get a Merc E220cdi estate or BMW 520d?

veetwin

Or even look at something like a V70 in the UK where you'll get an awful lot more bang for your buck. The Mondeo is in a different class to the Octavia and C'eed which are more Focus sized so its a bit unfair to make comparisons. However from owning a Mondeo once the only thing that would turn me off them is the eye watering depreciation particularly if you buy a new one.

Money Shot

Hammertime wrote: »

Hi MS,

why buy new?

Have you looked at BMW/Merc estate options in the UK?

Well to be honest, I've never bought a second hand car before, and would be slightly fearful of doing so given the trouble some of my friends have had in the past with used cars. Also, I'm not very mechanically minded, so would pay extra for piece of mind. I've bought 3 new cars before, held each for between 3-5 years and never had any maintenance costs other than a service every 10k miles. I also like new cars for some reason. I'm probably ruling out some great options here, and I might look into it a bit before I make my final decision.

As regard buying in the UK - I really wouldn't know where to start. What are the advantages, and what's involved ??

Dave147

My dad brought an 03 Audi A6 Avant 1.9TDI from the UK for a neighbour of ours last year, my dad has the same but 1.8TQ, he's had very little in line of maintenance to his and our neighbour has had absolutely no trouble with his diesel. Very affordable car, very comfortable car, and looks very nice aswell especially in black. As it's a B6 model it's going to be cheaper again, audi have a B7 estate aswell. Nice example there.



Believe it or not, I actually don't work for audi.. :P

Mr.David

For example:

http://www.cargiant.co.uk/BMW/details.asp?Id=385037

Zube

veetwin wrote: »

However from owning a Mondeo once the only thing that would turn me off them is the eye watering depreciation particularly if you buy a new one.

All new cars depreciate at eye watering rates, 50% in three years is typical. Say the Mondeo is worse and loses 60%, while a BMW 520 is better than average and loses 40%.

After 3 years in a Mondeo 2.0 diesel, the buyer is down 60% of €34,000, that's €20,000. BMW man is down 40% of €57,500 that's €23,000.

Some will say that it's well worth the €3000 (plus whatever the bigger loan or capital outlay cost you) to be in a better car, but from a financial point of view, percentage depreciation is not the only thing to consider.

Mr.David

Or if you wanted a Mondeo:

http://www.cargiant.co.uk/Ford/details.asp?Id=382191

This car supermarket have a section on their website for importing to Ireland. Its really not that difficult!

Money Shot

Mr.David wrote: »

Or if you wanted a Mondeo:

http://www.cargiant.co.uk/Ford/details.asp?Id=382191

This car supermarket have a section on their website for importing to Ireland. Its really not that difficult!

Wow, a 2005 mondeo for 4.5 k sterling (under 7k euro)

thanks for the replies so far - plenty to consider ..

Mr.David

That specific example I posted is high mileage for the age but the point remains the same. you can expect then to pay 2-3k euro to register it here. Still good value.

superjosh9

If you have a family and young kids I think you're right to get a new car. Mondeo, C'eed, Octavia etc. they are all good and safe too. Obviously the mondeo is a good bit bigger though.

If it was me, I'd prob go for the Kia C'eed. It's diesel engine is low C02, so you pay very little for tax (diddo the others too). Also, and importantly if you're not a car guy, a 7 year warranty. 7 YEARS! That's great peace of mind and its things like this that will boost the Kia's resale value in years to come. OK, we're not talking VW resale value - but I really think they are a brand on the up - i.e, resale will not be too bad - esp for diesel, estate! Reliability wise, of those three cars, I would also go with the Kia - though as we all know the VW diesel is a workhorse.

Also, I think they look quite well - and the interiors seem up to the job. So, all in all, if the car is big enough for you, go with the C'eed. It has everything but the badge.

My brother and my parents have both bought new Hyundai (sister company to Kia) Sonata's this year and 4 months later, both are still raving about how good the cars are - and that's after a lifetime in Volvos, Saabs, Mercs etc.

My sister will be buying a new car over the next few months and the C'eed/Hyundai I-30 (same car) are both on her list.

re. the comment on the safety ratings. I disagree with it. I think manufacturers have woken up to the fact that safety does sell now, and have therefore raised their games. If you look at the Euro NCAP site, you will see that the Mondeo and Volvo V70 perform identically in the test - and they should since they are the same car. Indeed the Mondeo shades the Volvo. But, the Volvo is a 'Volvo' so people will says it's safer. It's not - it's the same as the Mondeo, but with a name for safety. From days gone by. As a Volvo fan, this kind of thing kills me, but I have spent a lot of time researching safety of cars including real life crashes.
I have a Volvo 940 - perceived to be a safe car. Not anymore:
http://www.zercustoms.com/news/Renault-Modus-vs.-Volvo-940-crash-test.html

I will say to watch out for the visibility on a car. New cars, including the ones you mentioned have think pillers - A-piller especially - designed to take high loads. The result is that they are very thick and pronounced, and often block your view of the road. So, sit into all the cars and see which you are comfortable in. The 940s visibility is second to none, and for me that is every bit as important as an airbag etc. but I won't be saying that if I'm ever hit by someone who's run a light and plowed into me from nowhere!!

Anyway, point is, the cars you mentioned are safe!

Mr.David

superjosh9 wrote: »

If you have a family and young kids I think you're right to get a new car.

Why? What difference does having a family make to a new/used car?! If you mean in terms of safety then you can buy a used car that is currently in production. Anyway it would be controversial to claim that the Kia is safer than the previous generation Merc E class for instance....

Henry Ford III

Hyundai Sonata You cannot be serious?

superjosh9

Mr.David wrote: »

Why? What difference does having a family make to a new/used car?! If you mean in terms of safety then you can buy a used car that is currently in production. Anyway it would be controversial to claim that the Kia is safer than the previous generation Merc E class for instance....

It's clean and you know exactly where it's been it's whole life. We spend so much time telling our kids not to touch 'dirty' things - yet we'll let them jump into a car with a history that we don't know. Anyway, that's just my opinion, I don't want to have you all jump on my back now.

Re the comment about the safety. A post 98 W210 E-class scored well on the NCAP. The 95-97 ones did not and thus were modified. So, if a C'eed hit one, since they are both comparable NCAP wise, you would go for the Merc since it is heavier.

This may not be the case for a W-124 however. It's the A-Pillers that you need to look at. In the older one's, with a sharp angle between the windscreen and room, i.e square like in the 940, the A-pillers will snap after a certain load. The new a-pillers are much more gradual and rounded with no sharp angle where the windscreen meets the roof - instead it is all one complete shape designed to dissipate the energy - but the flip side is that the large, pronounced forward pillers are hard to see out of - re Perugeot 407 et al.



note above the angle where the top of windscreen hits the roof.



now compare with this new V70. The angle is much less severe. This is not just a style thing but has a purpose.

If you look at the NCAP videos you will see that the older cars' A-Piller give way and score 1 star, even Saabs etc. Because the A-Piller collapses the cars fold up and the safety-cell intergrity is lost. Compare this with the new car NCAP videos. You will see in a lot of cases that even the winscreen does not crack as the A-Pillers absorbs the load and dissipates the energy throughout the car. This can be seen in the slow motion clips as 'ripples' in the roof and doors and rear wings even.

The ultimate way to see the difference between these older and newer designs is the previous Volvo 940 vs. Renault Modus clip:
http://www.zercustoms.com/news/Renault-Modus-vs.-Volvo-940-crash-test.html

Note that the Modus is quite like a stone, solid and stiff structure - where's the 940, although heavier, is not as 'tight' - and it's like a cardboard box by comparison. It might be heavier than the stone - but it is nowhere near as rigid. Indeed the Modus uses the 940 as a deformable structure.

Also, observe in that video the front a-piller of the 940 vs. the Modus. I have seen real-life 940 crashes and the car performs identically to how it performs here. It is fine up to a certain speed, i.e, the speed of crashes as tested in the 70s/80s - but not up to the NCAP standard, which is tested at a slightly higher speed.

Another clear-cut example is to look at the performance of the Merc C-Class since it was launched in 93:


1997


2007

Note - a-pillars. This is exactly the same test at exactly the same speed.


Anyway, I will finish up by saying that I for one believe the safest part of the car is the driver - and that if you drive with a mentality that you are going to have a crash - there is nothing worse. BUT. I still think it pays to prepare for the unexpected, esp when you are not at fault. I.e, you don't put your hand into fire if you can avoid it. I myself over the last few months have had two *very* near misses with left-hand drive cars that were driving on the wrong side of the road. That kind of thing just didnt happen even 5 or 10 years ago. And yet now there are left-hand drive cars driven by people who often forget where they are. I will not comment on the latest crash that was mentioned on the news last night.

superjosh9

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Hyundai Sonata You cannot be serious?

Nothing wrong with a Sonata. Unless of course you believe what you read in the magazines. I myself can't remember the last time I sat at the lights and accelerated from 0-62.5 mph as fast as I could - and yet that is one of the very first things that they ever mention. Weiners.

Money Shot

superjosh9 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a Sonata. Unless of course you believe what you read in the magazines. I myself can't remember the last time I sat at the lights and accelerated from 0-62.5 mph as fast as I could - and yet that is one of the very first things that they ever mention. Weiners.

The Kia only manages 0-60 in 11.6 seconds, which is .7 of a second below the class average. Also, it only manages a top speed of 116 mph against the class average of 119.6 mph. I hadn't factored that into my decision, and don't think I will. On the other hand it does get 13 more miles more per gallon than the class average.

I'm going to look into used cars and see what the benefits and trade-off's are compared to the new lesser brand. I don't think I would go down the importing from the UK route - I don't think it's worth it in my price bracket and it's always good to have a garage to go back to if something goes wrong early on.

BrianD3

Don't want to hijack the thread but @superjosh - you are spot on with your comments about the safety. Here is another interesting comparison that you may or may not have seen. 5th gear crashed a Renault Laguna II into a tree at 88 km/h, a test which is very different to the so called "unrepresentative" NCAP offset test that it gained 5 stars in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76j5bZl72FI

Now compare what happens when a Ford Sierra is crashed into a tree-like object at speeds of 50, 70 and 90 km/h. OK the "tree barrier" used is somewhat more rigid than the actual tree used in the Laguna test and the angle is also slightly different but still - check out the 90 km/h test. If you were driving you'd be needing a closed casket after this :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uGGvJjR5jw

Also there are several studies that have found a correlation between EuroNCAP stars and the risk of injury in real crashes. Basically it is incorrect to say that EuroNCAP is crap, not a good measure of safety etc. It's not perfect but i'd love to see someone's idea of a better way of evaluating passive safety.

Henry Ford III

superjosh9 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a Sonata.

Try and trade in or resell one. They are truly horrendous.

R.O.R

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Try and trade in or resell one. They are truly horrendous.

Having driven the old model I would have agreed with you, but....

We auctioned a few cars off to a customer of ours. One was a 2003 Sonata Manual which attracted much more interest than similar age 3 Series, C-Class and 9-3's - surprised all of us.

The new model is by all accounts far superior to the hateful old Snotata.

Money Shot

BrianD3 wrote: »

Also there are several studies that have found a correlation between EuroNCAP stars and the risk of injury in real crashes. Basically it is incorrect to say that EuroNCAP is crap, not a good measure of safety etc. It's not perfect but i'd love to see someone's idea of a better way of evaluating passive safety.

What other way does a consumer have to compare the safety of cars ??? I'm not aware of any, and you can't put the safety of your kids down to hearsay (not the x factor band - although, I wouldn't trust them with my kids either) i.e such n such says Volvo are safe and Kia are not..

BrianD3

Money Shot wrote: »

What other way does a consumer have to compare the safety of cars ??? I'm not aware of any, and you can't put the safety of your kids down to hearsay (not the x factor band - although, I wouldn't trust them with my kids either) i.e such n such says Volvo are safe and Kia are not..

There is the Swedish Folksam report which is based only on real life death/injury statistics. However this is a flawed way of evaluating safety. Pre EuroNCAP, it was about the only safety information available to consumers.
http://www.folksam.se/english/reports

tred

Mr.David wrote: »

Well first thing is to ignore the NCAP safety ratings. They arent really representative of real safety. Manufacturers can engineer a car specifically to do well in NCAP tests which are very limited.

Ya, I agree that you should look in England for a car instead. Get a Merc E220cdi estate or BMW 520d?

Have you an example of this. To me safety is key. And NCAP is the only gauge I can go by. I cant take a chance on a euro 3 start ncap car, and find out in a bad smash, that actually its was as good as a 5 or not. i have to take a chance on a 5. And in Fairness to Ncap if a manufacturer does well in their testing, its a good chance to car will cope in most situations. Ok, if it falls of a bridge then its a different story.

listermint

superjosh9 wrote: »

It's clean and you know exactly where it's been it's whole life. We spend so much time telling our kids not to touch 'dirty' things - yet we'll let them jump into a car with a history that we don't know.

I've said it before and il say it again and again and again. If you take a small amount of time to do the back ground check on a vehicle and then pay a quailified engineer be it AA or RAC or whoever. Then you have the knowledge on the car and they do give guarantee's on the checks. And to be honest in my opinion you will get more car for your bucks if you knock a few years off and knock a few classes up. Id be looking at the A4 Estate if i was you. They look great, have plenty of space and engines have a history of quality. (Always get anything you buy checked , Thats the KEY!!)

Just because a car is new doesnt mean that their is'nt going to be issues. There are pluses and minus's to buying new and Used but you shouldnt throw it out without consideration.

Climate Expert

We spend so much time telling our kids not to touch 'dirty' things - yet we'll let them jump into a car with a history that we don't know.

ahahha what ****ed up logic.
Somebody has to take the big depreciation hit for the rest of us I supppose so cheers for that.

superjosh9

listermint wrote: »

Just because a car is new doesnt mean that their is'nt going to be issues. There are pluses and minus's to buying new and Used but you shouldnt throw it out without consideration.

I agree. If you have no interest in cars however, I would say you are betting off buying a new car if you can.

Climate Expert wrote: »

ahahha what ****ed up logic.
Somebody has to take the big depreciation hit for the rest of us I supppose so cheers for that.

Has life been that tough Climate Expert?

superjosh9

BrianD3 wrote: »

...5th gear crashed a Renault Laguna II into a tree at 88 km/h, a test which is very
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76j5bZl72FI

Ford Sierra is crashed into a tree...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uGGvJjR5jw
...

Good videos there cheers - hadn't seen them before. The Laguna did very well alright! The Sierra was scary, esp at 90 when you're man's head was taken off!

Considering that they aren't NCAP-type tests, it's good to see - so the guidelines provided by Euro NCAP do ring true, as the Laguna performed in a similar manner to normal!

confuzed

sorry for highjacking massage. :)Today i baught 06 Ford Mondeo 1.8 Platinum model in 16 grand. I like style and sturdiness of mondeo and that's it. I really don't care about Ncrap rating or some Joe's rating.

Mr.David

tred wrote: »

Have you an example of this. To me safety is key. And NCAP is the only gauge I can go by. I cant take a chance on a euro 3 start ncap car, and find out in a bad smash, that actually its was as good as a 5 or not. i have to take a chance on a 5. And in Fairness to Ncap if a manufacturer does well in their testing, its a good chance to car will cope in most situations. Ok, if it falls of a bridge then its a different story.

My point is that NCAPs dont consider passive safety well. There are thousands of small things that make a car safe or otherwise. The handling, the oversteer/understeer characteristics, the visibility, the effectiveness of the electronic aids, the brake pedal feel, even stuff that seems silly like how well the wipers work in heavy rain or how strong the headlights are.

I'm just saying that you shouldnt base your decision entirely upon NCAPs, they are an indicator in terms of active safety but there is more to it. However, if you do plan on driving into a wall at 40mph then stump up the extra cash for a 5 star car!

scraplfc

If you are going for something in the class of a Mondeo, the new Mazda 6 Estate has had storming reviews. I bought second hand and went for an Audi A4 estate (2 years old). Best decision ever.

S.I.R

Money Shot wrote: »

Going to get a new car soon, and I've decided that a decent estate car will fit the families needs best.
My main considerations in the purchase are Safety, reliability and practicality (space) rather than looks, raciness, badge or impressing anyone etc. Obviously price is a major consideration too.

I was initially going to spend the bit extra and go for the new Modeo estate, but I have been looking around, and a couple of other cars just seem much better value for money given the whole package and my needs.

Octavia estate 1.9tdi, reliable, 4 star safety rating, decent spec, large boot etc, decent price circa 24 k
Kia Cee'd SW 1.6d - reliable ??, 5 star safety rating, very good spec, Great boot space, very good price circa 23 K (also, a good 0% finance deal at present)

I know the mondeo is bigger and is a very good car, but I can't see anything that can justify the extra 5 or 6 k to me.

Any opionions welcome - or any others that I may have overlooked.

thanks

mondeo is among the most boring cars in the world, the estate is even worse...


a decent 3/5 serise estate or the a4 estate is the best buy imho, for that budget, but with cars like them , there such a high calibur that age doesnt matter.

superjosh9

S.I.R wrote: »

...but with cars like them , there such a high calibur that age doesnt matter.

my goodness

Mr.David

superjosh9 wrote: »

my goodness

+1