getting a new (well used car, new to me) car advice.

JimiTime · 14-06-2011 11:12am #1

Hi all,
I'm curently driving a 99 Nissan Almera. I've had it for 6 years, and can honestly say that its given me NO trouble whatsoever. 110,000 miles on the clock, I bought it at 55,000. I recently had it NCT'd and so its got its 2 year cert.

Now, I have little reason to sell apart from simply bringing my car up to date and to increase space (Got a 9 month old, with another on the way in November). I'm not an enthusiast, and I've driven far, far more comfy cars, but reliability is the top of my list. So, my question is what could you recommend car wise at around the €4000 (Thats what i payed for my car 6 years ago) mark?

*I'd love an estate (As I often have music equipment to transport too).
*I don't want to spend more on tax, so I'd have to stick to 1.4l I think?
*Good fuel economy.
*And most important of all, RELIABILITY.

I don't ask for much:) Any recomendations would be greatly appreciated.

omb0wyn5ehpij9 · 14-06-2011 11:29am

In general, a 1.4 engine in an estate car = gutless and dangerously slow IMO

JimiTime · 14-06-2011 11:36am

BDJW wrote: »

In general, a 1.4 engine in an estate car = gutless and dangerously slow IMO

What does DANGEROUSLY slow mean? Speed isn't an issue for me, but if there is a tangible danger of constantly using high revs etc I would be concerned.

omb0wyn5ehpij9 · 14-06-2011 11:41am

JimiTime wrote: »

What does DANGEROUSLY slow mean? Speed isn't an issue for me, but if there is a tangible danger of constantly using high revs etc I would be concerned.

Slow is probably the wrong word, I should have said underpowered.
And I just mean that a 1.4 engine dragging around an estate car is going to find it hard to comfortably overtake other vehicles in general

Max Power1 · 14-06-2011 11:43am

JimiTime wrote: »

What does DANGEROUSLY slow mean? Speed isn't an issue for me, but if there is a tangible danger of constantly using high revs etc I would be concerned.

It would be less quick to pull out of junctions, or when overtaking etc.

Also the underpowered engines would use more fuel, and burn out quicker due to the increased stress on the engine.

Theres a reason many larger cars dont get 1.4 (or even 1.6) engines in most markets bar paddy spec.

EPM · 14-06-2011 11:44am

JimiTime wrote: »

What does DANGEROUSLY slow mean? Speed isn't an issue for me, but if there is a tangible danger of constantly using high revs etc I would be concerned.

Modern cars a heavier than their predecessors in many cases due to safety equipment etc. An underpowered engine may be less economical than a larger engine in the same car as it may have to be driven harder negating any financial benefit in buying the smaller engine.

14-06-2011 11:57am

You will struggle to get a 1.4 estate, especially with the €4000 budget. You might fine a 1.4 Octavia estate (dunno if they were made tbh though), if they exist the gearbox is a weakness on them. Really the only thing that springs to mind is an Astra estate, few of them around but I wouldn't rate them as reliable as an Almera that you have at the mo.

Would it be an option to wait a year and spend a but more than and perhaps go to larger engine?

All jokes aside the Octavia car (not estate) does have a decent boot.

If you were willing to pay 2.0 road tax a Rover 75 estate would be ideal for you, €4000 would get a very nice diesel one.

Eoin · 14-06-2011 12:08pm

JimiTime wrote: »

*I don't want to spend more on tax, so I'd have to stick to 1.4l I think?

Don't be constrained by the tax. It's likely to be one of the smallest factors in your running costs.

[B]Engine size	Annual Tax[/B]
1301 - 1400	 &#8364;333
1401 - 1500	 &#8364;357
1501 - 1600	 &#8364;445
1601 - 1700	 &#8364;471
1701 - 1800	 &#8364;551
1801 - 1900	 &#8364;582
1901 - 2000	 &#8364;614

Max Power1 · 14-06-2011 12:09pm

RoverJames wrote: »

If you were willing to pay 2.0 road tax a Rover 75 estate would be ideal for you, €4000 would get a very nice diesel one.

+1 here.

I had my eye on one recently but it wasnt feasible at the time and I ended up buying elsewhere.

The 75 estate is a great bus, a lot of car for the money. The difference in tax from a 1.6 to a 2litre isnt that much, about 200 euro.
EDIT: its €169, thanks Eoin.

If it were my money, i'd be taking the 75 2.0d estate any day of the week over a drastically underpowered asthmatic like a 1.4 astra/octy!

JimiTime · 14-06-2011 2:15pm

Thanks for the replies guys. I may just have to knock the estate on the head and go for another saloon. Increasing the engine size raises my tax, insurance and also petrol costs. All of this combined is just not financially feasible for me at the moment.

So if we leave the estate requirement aside, would you have recommendations?

Also, I don't really do much long distance driving anymore, so that seems to rule out Diesel?

Max Power1 · 14-06-2011 2:20pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Thanks for the replies guys. I may just have to knock the estate on the head and go for another saloon. Increasing the engine size raises my tax, insurance and also petrol costs. All of this combined is just not financially feasible for me at the moment.

So if we leave the estate requirement aside, would you have recommendations?

Also, I don't really do much long distance driving anymore, so that seems to rule out Diesel?

The tax increase is €169 p/a, or roughly 50 cent per day.

Insurance wouldnt\shouldnt increase. The rover 75 is not in a loaded class.

You would get 45-50 mpg from the diesel 75, which is probably a damn side more than you'd get from a 1.4 estate. (or indeed many petrol saloons)

JimiTime · 14-06-2011 2:37pm

Max Power1 wrote: »

The tax increase is €169 p/a, or roughly 50 cent per day.

Insurance wouldnt\shouldnt increase. The rover 75 is not in a loaded class.

You would get 45-50 mpg from the diesel 75, which is probably a damn side more than you'd get from a 1.4 estate. (or indeed many petrol saloons)

The tax is almost double. It would go from €333 up to €614. TBH, insurance is just an assumption on my part. Insurance is currently €336. You reckon this wouldn't really change?

Also, on the issue of fuel consumption, a rule of thumb I always used was the bigger the engine, the more you'll be forking out for fuel. I realise that some cars are not as economical as others etc, but as a general rule of thumb, is this right?

14-06-2011 2:39pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, on the issue of fuel consumption, a rule of thumb I always used was the bigger the engine, the more you'll be forking out for fuel. I realise that some cars are not as economical as others etc, but as a general rule of thumb, is this right?

As a rule of thumb yes, a diesel is a more efficient than a petrol though

Ring your insurance and ask them about insuring the like of a diesel 75 estate if it tickles your fancy.

JimiTime · 14-06-2011 2:50pm

RoverJames wrote: »

As a rule of thumb yes, a diesel is a more efficient than a petrol though

Ring your insurance and ask them about insuring the like of a diesel 75 estate if it tickles your fancy.

I always heard bad things about Rovers, I take it that doesn't apply here? Also, in relation to diesel, it seems to be a common theme that if you're city driving most of the time, then you should stick to petrol?

kerten · 14-06-2011 2:52pm

I think in your case whatever you buy newer and bigger than almera will be less economical one way or another. Your almera is one of most reliable car in the market and you should accept that newer cars are more problematic in general because of complexity.

What you are looking for is everyone's target : good looking,low tax, fuel efficient and reliable and less than 4k.

I recommend you a pre-2005 Focus 1.6 petrol. they are reliable and good rides. Estates are a little bit ugly but it depends on your taste.

Eoin · 14-06-2011 2:56pm

JimiTime wrote: »

The tax is almost double. It would go from €333 up to €614.

That's probably a small percentage of your annual running costs though.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, on the issue of fuel consumption, a rule of thumb I always used was the bigger the engine, the more you'll be forking out for fuel. I realise that some cars are not as economical as others etc, but as a general rule of thumb, is this right?

It can really depend. A car with an engine that struggles to pull its weight around will suffer. I had an Alfa 156 1.6 which got very similar fuel consumption to my dad's 156 2.0. My BMW 525 got pretty similar MPG to the 520 and 530.

JimiTime wrote:

I always heard bad things about Rovers,

The 2.0 diesel engine in those Rovers is from the BMW e46 320d. It's not the most refined, but pretty solid. It didn't suffer the same problems as the 150bhp engine in the later 320d.

JimiTime · 14-06-2011 2:58pm

kerten wrote: »

I think in your case whatever you buy newer and bigger than almera will be less economical one way or another. Your almera is one of most reliable car in the market and you should accept that newer cars are more problematic in general because of complexity.

Really? I would have thought it to be improving. What kind of complexity are we talking? ABS etc? Also, I assume the newer Almeras are not as reliable as the older ones?

What you are looking for is everyone's target : good looking,low tax, fuel efficient and reliable and less than 4k.

Yeah, its asking a bit. But I got it last time with my Almera, so I'd love to get it again.

I recommend you a pre-2005 Focus 1.6 petrol. they are reliable and good rides. Estates are a little bit ugly but it depends on your taste.

Pre-2005 because they were better (i.e. more reliable) before then, or because realistically I'd never get one from 2005 onwards for my budget?

Max Power1 · 14-06-2011 3:05pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, on the issue of fuel consumption, a rule of thumb I always used was the bigger the engine, the more you'll be forking out for fuel. I realise that some cars are not as economical as others etc, but as a general rule of thumb, is this right?

Not always true, there are 2.0 cars that are less economical than 4.0 litre cars for example the Misubishi Evo and the Jaguar XJ.

Consumption is not always linked to engine size, but also to torque, bhp/tonne, engine stress,and many other factors.

JimiTime wrote: »

I always heard bad things about Rovers, I take it that doesn't apply here? Also, in relation to diesel, it seems to be a common theme that if you're city driving most of the time, then you should stick to petrol?

The bad things you would have heard about rovers would be mostly down to the 1.8 K series petrol engine that was prone to HGF if not managed properly. The rover diesel units are basically detuned versions of the engine in the e46 320d.

Diesels generally wouldnt be suitable for mostly city driving.

kerten · 14-06-2011 3:13pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Really? I would have thought it to be improving. What kind of complexity are we talking? ABS etc? Also, I assume the newer Almeras are not as reliable as the older ones?

It is wrong to generalize it but I guess most of the motorheads agree with me. Newer cars has more sensors to go in engine , more electrical toys or safety systems that can go wrong with time. IMO, Car producers stopped engineering their cars to last after year 2000 and it is getting worse with new emission based tax systems, etc.

Newer Almera has problems that your almera doesn't have(I had one of these n15 almeras, they are unbreakable) but there are worse cars on the market of course.

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, its asking a bit. But I got it last time with my Almera, so I'd love to get it again.

It is possible but accepting higher tax or fuel cost may end you up on a nice car.

JimiTime wrote: »

Pre-2005 because they were better (i.e. more reliable) before then, or because realistically I'd never get one from 2005 onwards for my budget?

They were best car in their class at their time and quite resistant to high mileage. There are not many things to go wrong with them and they are economical(don't buy 1.4). IMO interior and driving position is better on older model. Possibly you may buy high mileage newer model but I recommend low mileage older model.;)

JimiTime · 14-06-2011 3:30pm

kerten wrote: »

It is wrong to generalize it but I guess most of the motorheads agree with me. Newer cars has more sensors to go in engine , more electrical toys or safety systems that can go wrong with time. IMO, Car producers stopped engineering their cars to last after year 2000 and it is getting worse with new emission based tax systems, etc.

Newer Almera has problems that your almera doesn't have(I had one of these n15 almeras, they are unbreakable) but there are worse cars on the market of course.

It is possible but accepting higher tax or fuel cost may end you up on a nice car.

They were best car in their class at their time and quite resistant to high mileage. There are not many things to go wrong with them and they are economical(don't buy 1.4). IMO interior and driving position is better on older model. Possibly you may buy high mileage newer model but I recommend low mileage older model.;)

The more I talk about it, the more I think I'll just hold onto my Nissan.

kerten · 14-06-2011 3:39pm

JimiTime wrote: »

The more I talk about it, the more I think I'll just hold onto my Nissan.

If reliability is so important for you, you can have a look at 2001-2002 Primera hatchbacks with 1.6-1.8 lt engines(1.6 is slower but more reliable as far as I remember)
They have almera like reliability with bigger boot. Possibly will cost you only 1000-1500 E and they are more comfortable than almera for sure. Only disadvantage of them is dreadful steering lock:mad:

And before you ask it, yes pre-2002 is more reliable than post-2002 model:D

getting a new (well used car, new to me) car advice.

Comments