Duke O Smiley wrote: » My main focus was the tyre..
ELM327 wrote: » Grand car there for someone. Those mark4 golfs go on for ever. We've had 3 in the family, not one of them below 250k miles now and all running grand. A lot to be said for the earlier nonPD engines but it all went downhill when the 1.9 was replaced by the 2.0 in the mark 5 golfs.
JKerova1 wrote: » What do you mean when you say non-PD? How did you find the mk4 GTi compared to the TDI/GTTDi?
blindside88 wrote: » Can someone please come up with a few reasons why I shouldn't buy this car? The only ones I can think of is that it's not practical, the wife will leave me and I don't need it. On the plus side it could be insured as a classic and the wife will leave me https://www.donedeal.ie/view/16753159 ALFA GTV / NCT 2018
everlast75 wrote: » Love the GTV. I was working in an Alfa garage when it was launched. I accidentally scuffed the front right bumper parking it up at night :-/
blindside88 wrote: » Are they as horribly unreliable as the badge suggests or do you know what I should watch out for. I'll obviously get a mechanic to look it over for me
everlast75 wrote: » It would be more of a weekend car IMHO. I wouldn't buy it as a daily commute, but I would of course recommend a complete check over by your mechanic. PS - they aren't the original wheels IIRC
Top Dog wrote: » Looks like a nice car. Over 6 months tax so effectively a 1300 car with test to February. If it wasn't for the fuel consumption I'd be interested myself. Saab 95 Aero Hot 2.3 Turbo Petrol 260BHP Automatichttps://www.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/saab-95-aero-hot-2-3-turbo-petrol-260bhp-automatic/16728324
NyOmnishambles wrote: » Like most Alfas once all the belts and bits have been changed on time and the oil is kept topped up they are grand At that age there will probably be a few electrical gremlins or window/wiper motors that could do with replacing but there wouldn't be too much to go wrong with it My concern would be the fact it has been lowered, they wouldn't be the most comfortable or forgiving cars on normal suspension and are low enough already but if there is documentation that it has been done properly then it might be alright
Bigus wrote: » 2008 v50 @1850 asking on for 19 days low ball him €1200 and use the balance to tax it for the yearhttps://www.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/08-volvo-v50-estate-1-8-petrol-nct-2-18/16459915
grogi wrote: » Been there, passed on it. Bodywork: full of poor chip repairs, two or three dents. Some corrosion on the edges of the doors and wheel arches. Paint on the handles flakes away. Crack on the rear bumper. Tyres: nice Continentals Sport Contact, but to my best knowledge in wrong size (should be 225/45/17, there are 235/45/17 - but Aero Hot might have had wider tyres). Full of thread, but 5 years old already. Normal wear & tear of the alloys. Electrics: the drivers seat regulation did not work in one of the directions, A/C fan makes a high pitched sound that would scare the dogs in proximity. There is a self-leveling light level warning on the dash. The boot release does not work from the outside - broken switch. Mechanically: did not see a service for a few years (but did not do huge miles anyway), brakes engage VEEERY late - to the point I almost crashed it on the test drive. Drive-train makes a rattle, which gets louder increases with the load (not the speed!) of the engine - hence it probably isn't a pulley or anything on the belt. Did not sound like a crank bearing as well. Might be a flex plate that connects to the torque converter. Changing the gear from P to R is a bit harsh. Apart from that, it looked fresh and clean inside, changes gears very smoothly and accelerates like crazy. It was a very nice place to be in and drive, but switched on a few warnings lights to many for me to jump into €1000 tax/year vehicle.
NyOmnishambles wrote: » My concern would be the fact it has been lowered, they wouldn't be the most comfortable or forgiving cars on normal suspension and are low enough already but if there is documentation that it has been done properly then it might be alright
acronym Chilli wrote: » Nice car it seems, but I'd be very surprised if he'd react well to such a low-ball offer. Not saying there isn't money to be negotiated off... but I'd say he's a higher back-stop figure in his head (maybe be brazen and start with 1200 and hope to land on 1500 for a deal)
grogi wrote: » Been there, passed on it.
Top Dog wrote: » Is 38mpg a realistic figure for these?
colm_mcm wrote: » No. it's probably the 1.8 Flexifuel too which is a bit heavier on juice than a regular 1.8
1874 wrote: » Less than 38mpg, thats pretty poor, what was flexfuel about? emissions? (edit, I checked) ethanol mixed fuel, how did that all pan out? is e85 widely available? if not running it are there disadvantages or any generally to these engines, a quick look suggests e85 is harsher on certain engine parts which ultimately may require main dealer attention so is this a bad idea as a purchase for an older car? I was sat in the back of one of these of around that year, felt very cramped, not that Id be in the back, plus I was not keen on the interior, I like estates and not sure if my advancing years has made me grow on volvos but I like the look of it, shame about the mpg, as much as Id like to up the years, keep not finding reasons (fingers crossed) to change from my pre dpf diesel octavia, I might stay clear of flexfuel engines now myself from reading a little (very), not sure if justified, but I like reliability and low running costs, if time and money were no object, Id have nice but temperamental cars.
ELM327 wrote: » We don't really have e85 anymore, it was a short lived cheap fuel but the tax rules changed. The disadvantage of the FlexFuel engines is that they get less mpg than the non flex equivalent.
1874 wrote: » I did think the lower mpg was only for when used with E85 from reading up.
1874 wrote: » So all the disadvantages of flexfuel with none of the advantages whatever they were but which seem like none, basically all disadvantages? I hadn't noticed a mention of e85 in a long time, didn't know it was cheaper, but wasnt looking out in particular for it, price of a fuel being cheaper would be something that could easily change, seems like it was a motoring evolutionary dead end, I did think the lower mpg was only for when used with E85 from reading up. Still Id be more concerned if something is generally reliable mechanically and cheap initially, lower mpg isn't as much a hit as people might think over lower miles, but that might make the cost of tax/engine size more redundant. Car might still be a viable option?
