Looking at used cars about 7 to 10 years old - what is as good as a Yaris (reliability, easy to work on, economy) but slightly bigger and better on motorways and preferably also has a camchain instead of a cambelt.
Thanks for the suggestion, it looks like a possibility but a bit less economical and more expensive than a 10yo Civic. What would be the main weakness of a 10yo Civic?
Pretty much any 10 year-old car is likely to carry some risk. Traditionally, Hondas generally become more expensive to maintain as they get older than other makes.
Unless you do very high annual mileages (in which case you shouldn't be looking at a car of this age), fuel consumption between cars of a similar size and engine type won't be significant.
It is for my daughter. The Yaris she has has been great - purchased at
127K it has done 42K in just over two years - needing only normal servicing items, an alternator (became noisy) & two front shockers. It doesn't seem to use a drop of oil and slight valve noise (?) on ticking over hasn't got worse or caused any problems.
The Diesel 1.7 Civic seems to have significantly lower fuel costs so looks interesting. Are there any particular expensive replacement parts I'd want to avoid? Does this engine go on for ever like a good diesel should?
Diesels haven't done that since the advent of common rail injection.
The 1.7 diesel in Hondas of that era is an Isuzu derived lump, built by GM Powertrain and also used in Vauxhalls in the UK.
I don't think it's a particularly sold diesel lump.
One of my franchisees runs a Polo with the old school VW 1.9D engine. Those things may not be quick, but they'll be the only thing still working after the apocalypse.
On 03/11/14 23:09, SteveH wrote:> aeio wrote: > >> Does this engine go on for ever like a good diesel >> should? > > I think you're a little out of date.
Yes no doubt about that - and sort of assumed engines had continued to improve regarding longevity.
Old-school diesels were terrible polluters, were noisy, and had low specific power outputs. They were generally reliable, but unpleasant.
Modern diesels are low polluters, are fairly quiet and refined, and have high specific outputs. They are somewhat less reliable, but more pleasant to drive. Repair costs for fairly trivial things in any 10 year-old car may exceed its value, and that's more likely with a modern diesel than a modern petrol.
To give you some comparison, a 1997 Fiesta 1.6 diesel produced 54BHP; a
the old fiesta was adequately fast and did 60 plus to the gallon, the new one is faster and less economical plus vastly more expensive to repair. A friend is still running an old passat diesel from 96, adequate performance and 70mpg on a run, 300,000 on the clock and the engine has never been apart, plus it can run on a cooking oil blend without complaint.
Have just had a (quick and incomplete) look at warantee premiums with warrantydirect.co.uk - and am slightly puzzled to see that the diesel Civic is the same premium as the petrol.
(Both £270 for a year, which on the face of it is good value as given the better mpg, there seems to be a fuel saving of £600 per year comparing the diesel 1.7 with the 1.6 petrol.)
I'd have thought an insurance company would be better at weighing up risk.
(They only provide cover up to 120K miles (or 12 years) - for either car.)
Would you recommend any of these diesels as likely to be good for high mileage (and the accompanying car as generally OK) ? :
Nissan Note 1.5 dCi SE MAZDA 3 1.6d Renault Clio 1.5 dCi Honda Civic 2.2TD SE Toyota Yaris 1.4 D-4D Volkswagen Golf 2.0 S SDI
I presume these 6 fall into your avoid-to-be-ultra-cautious class: ?
Skoda Fabia 1.4 TDI PD Skoda Octavia 1.9 TDI PD (a bit too large) Volkswagen Golf 1.9 Match TDI Volkswagen Golf Plus 1.9 S TDI PD Volkswagen Jetta 1.9 S TDI PD Volkswagen Polo 1.4 SE TDI 80
She is doing about 20K, so if I've got it right, at current prices, a car @ 56.5 mpg (eg the Civic 1.7 diesel) saves £600 per year in fuel costs over a car @ 42.8 mpg (eg the Civic 1.6 petrol)
The Civic 1.6 petrol is the current front runner, but probably worth paying extra if it could save iro £600 pa.
The service interval for the diesel is 15,000km; it's 20,000km for the
1.6 petrol.
The service time (for a mid-service) is 25% longer for the diesel.
The front tyre wear will also be slightly higher as the diesel is heavier.
Although not massive cost differences, they will add up to a significant amount over, say, 3 years/60,000 miles.
Additionally, it's marginally more likely that the diesel will need fuel system repairs (on the basis that there's more to go wrong), and Honda are not noted for the cheapness of their parts.
BTW, I'm not saying 'don't get the diesel', just pointing out that the apparent savings of running one, especially a 10 year-old one, won't always materialise.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.