I recently sold my Rover 218 Turbo diesel, and bought a 2001 Astra
1.7DTi, but I'm alarmed by its total lack of maintainability - I can't even set the tickover because it's "drive by wire". I'm also beginning to find all the horror stories about expensive pump failures on these engines. And its seats are uncomfortable, and while it's overall quieter than the 218, the noise it does make irritates me far more.
Given that my requirements are simplicity of maintenance, economy, reasonable comfort and space, and a driving position that can suit both me (6ft+) and the Boss (5ft), but that I don't give a damn about performance or image, any suggestions for a diesel estate or hatchback without electronics, and without the likelihood of killer bills? I appreciate the Astra's cheap road tax and insurance, but not much else.
Thus you will not need to. Besides which, all those manual adjustments on some older diesels were only prone to maladjustment.
I'm also beginning
All pump failures are expensive. Send a DPA pump away for exchange and expect a bill equivilent to a bag of fish and chips and you will be somewhat shocked.
And its seats are uncomfortable, and while it's overall
You should find that the latest engines developed with Fiat are very much more refined. It strikes me that you did little research before your purchase but are now doing research before your next vehicle. Which is good.
Unless you buy a ten year old car you will not find such a beast with either a diesel or petrol engine. The electronics have contributed to todays cars being more reliable with lower running costs than ever before while lasting much longer and polluting far less. A win-win situation if ever there was one. The electronics have been forced on manufacturers by emission regulations to the benefit of everyone as it turns out.
Sounds like an old sherpa with the awesome BMC 1800 Diesel would meet all your requirements. All right, not so much a hatchback as a hutchback, but you can't have everything.
> but I own one ofthese vehicles with 150,000 miles on the clock, it cost shirt buttons to runis simple to maintain and appears to be infinitely reliable. It seems to me that all manufacturers want to do nowadays is make megabucks on service charges and astronomical repair bills, or force people into dumping relatively modern vehicles because of high maintenance costs.
A classic example being that despite being a front wheel drive, the clutch can be replaced on the aforementioned model Astra in about an hour by a competent mechanic.
Compare that to the modern Fiat (a bit further down the thread under 'Clutch problem') any technical reason why say a timing belt replacement couldn't be a straightforward 60 minute job on the majority of vehicles?
Well.... on my current car, there's no bloody chance as the engine is, to be fair, too big for the engine bay. My wife's car needs some special tools to ensure everything is tensioned correctly..... and my last car, the Passat 1.8T needed half the front end removing to gain access.
The problem today is that, with all the crash protection, power steering and aircon pumps etc. access to to a cambelt change is a bit restricted.
Yes they are reliable on the whole. Definately far from unique though.
Hell the latest Vauxhall diesels can travel up to 30,000 miles between garage visits. Even if the services are twice or thrice the price of the old
4500 mile services of old 1990 Astra's they are dirt cheap per mile.
Yaaawn. This has been a gripe of the same type of person since my dad were a boy. It gets worse as you get older. "They don't make them like they used to" is a frequently heard phrase. 'Thank God' thinks I. Cars are more reliable and last longer on average than ever before.
Of course some car models are faster to repair some features than others. Some have components that last longer than others. Vive la differance.
My Fiat does not have a timing belt and has no service interval for valves, timing or any other maintenance schedule apart from fluid and filter changes. The accessibility for clutch changes does not look too bad for such a small car. At the other extreme my Land Cruiser is infinitely more roomy under the bonnet for all maintenance but does require a timing belt change every
90,000 miles which takes no more than an hour and a theoretical valve clearance adjustment which I have never done. Oil changes on my model year were required every 4500 miles but I have always used truck oil and changed every 10,000. Surprise surprise the latest models with exactly the same engines have official 10,000 mile oil change periods.
My other vehicle has official variable service intervals which equate to around every 14000 miles for me.
All are diesel and all are nicely refined and all have been very reliable so far but the Fiat is fairly new and none have much exceeded 100,000 miles.
Even my old Land Rover has had a totally reliable drivetrain over 21 years and over 10,000 hours of use. It is fairly maintenance intensive and much more expensive to run than more modern equivalents though and always has been. Drivetrain simplicity does not equate to a certain low running cost. It must have a combination of build quality, low depreciation, low service requirement, high reliability, economy, low insurance cost and fuel economy and lastly, and this gets more important for older vehicles, reasonable repair costs. If repair costs exceed a certain percentage of the vehicles value per year on average then it should be disposed of.
me (6ft+) and the Boss (5ft), but that I don't give a damn about
I have a '97 Pug. 306 snd , now that's what I call basic. hardly any electronics to get in the way.. When the clutch went on it a few months back ( after 165k ) the RAC man was saying how the more recent diesels have lost a lot of reliability because of all the electronics. He said the computers can cause lots of problems ... I fail to see how they can be more efficient either, mine does upto 700 Miles on a tank of diesel.. It's not the most comfortable/ quiet of cars though, but I wear ear plugs on the motorway ! the advantage of a diesel was always that there were fewer electical problems.
me (6ft+) and the Boss (5ft), but that I don't give a damn about
I have a '97 Pug. 306 snd , now that's what I call basic. hardly any electronics to get in the way.. When the clutch went on it a few months back ( after 165k ) the RAC man was saying how the more recent diesels have lost a lot of reliability because of all the electronics. He said the computers can cause lots of problems ... I fail to see how they can be more efficient either, mine does upto 700 Miles on a tank of diesel.. It's not the most comfortable/ quiet of cars though, but I wear ear plugs on the motorway ! an advantage of a diesel was always that there were fewer electical problems.
But I do: it's ticking over too fast, which makes crawling in traffic and manoeuvering a pain.
Not my experience, and in any event the simple adjustments are simply made.
I am fully aware of the cost of conventional pump repair or replacement, but I am also aware that:
they tend to wear out, rather than fail suddenly, so replacement can be planned, and carried out when convenient;
if they do need replacement, this can be carried out by a coarse mechanic like me, without exotic main-dealer equipment
the probability of the repair cost, including emergency assistance in the event of sudden failure, and repair at a non-preferred location, being of the same order as the value of the car is much lower.
It's not engine noise per se: it's the overall acoustic package which I dislike.
I am sure you did not intend to patronise, so please be aware that it can come over like that. My previous research had led me to hope that the advantage of moving forwards ten - fifteen years in technology would outweigh the disadvantages: I am disillusioned.
I've given up hope with petrol engines, but I understood that conventional technology in diesel engines continued in production a little longer. Part of my question could have been paraphrased "what was the last medium-sized car to be built where the radio is the most sophisticated electronic component?"
Any improvements in diesel engine efficiency seem to have been largely negated by the concessions to the green lobby, whose attentions do not seem to reach more than ten feet into the air as they fly around in aircraft burning vast amounts of untaxed fuel. My latest Astra uses more fuel than my 1989 Astra did, presumably thanks in part to such nonsensical additions as EGR (with its attendant electronics). As for reliability; as I said, it depends on your definition of the word, but I'm not convinced that my present Astra is more likely to get me home from any given journey than my old one was. It seems to have far more "total failure" modes.
I am also not convinced of the benefit of extremely long service intervals, particularly once the car is past its first flush of youth. The oil in my Astra may last longer, but it costs three times as much, and Vauxhall will not even provide a spec for the gear oil to enable proprietary brands to be chosen. Infrequent services mean that problems are not spotted before they develop, and if wear is found, then premature replacement is the only viable choice for a garage - hence new pads and discs at every service, because they need to be sure they'll last, not another 3000 miles, but another 20,000.
As someone else suggested, perhaps a Montego with that rather nice Perkins engine would suit me - but they're not easy to find in good bodily condition. Or perhaps I should have stayed with a 218 or 418 - preferably naturally-aspirated, so that the torques is there right through the speed range.
Or I'll stick to the Rangey, and let the Boss choose her next car.
They all do that Sir. There is no adjustment. If it is seriously astray I suggest there is some malfunction which needs addressing.
In my experience there are many adjustments on some vehicles which are very difficult to get right. This is the reason that modern cars which need to pass more stringent emmission tests need fine and precise adjustment in real time by computer.
I have had several sudden failures in mechanical injector pumps. One while overtaking a lorry while towing a caravan. The present electronically controlled unit fitted is a much simpler affair that never needs adjusting. The old ones were a nightmare to set up with myriad adjustments to compensate for altitude, cold weather, slow and fast idle and whatever else.
Maybe on the simplest units. The Bosch VP electronic pumps are certainly just fit and forget. No setting up as all adjustments are in the remote computer and preset. Some applications need a serial number to be matched between pump and computer but that is only a ten minute job at most but yes a dealer has to do it.
It was ever thus. A very cheap car like my Fiat Panda multijet will certainly not warrant a new replacement turbo when it is ten years old on a cost basis. However my 50,000 land cruiser and range rovers can justify a certain expense at that age. Cheap cars are becoming throwaway consumer products in the same way as a kettle is. This is just a reflection of the efficiency and low cost of new cars relative to the ready availability and [lack of] desireability of used cars combined with a high standard of living expected by fitters and other costs.
Take it as you like. This is Usenet after all :-)
My previous research had led me to hope that
Don't be. Just look a bit further. As you see above I do share your concern about repair costs but I differ perhaps in the way I view it in light of so many cheap used cars available. Now if my little Fiat's turbo were to fail and land me with a huge bill at only five years old then I would not be pleased but such is life.
Ford Escort. Maybe anything pre common rail or electronic injector pump. Peugot 406 perhaps. Plenty of good ones available for a song. A friend recently had his written off because of a slight ding on a wing and a scratch on the door. It was a turbo diesel in excellent condition with low milage [under 100k] but it was worth less than £1000.
Well all I can say is that my current 2.75 ton automatic range rover with performance chip is more economical than my first car which was a Ford Fiesta 1300. It is 4mpg more economical than my first diesel 2.4 RR manual despite being an order of magnitude more powerful, refined and reliable.
No problem. You can change your oil sooner than recommended if you are so minded. The gearbox oil wil be MTF. Any brand will do. I use Morris oil suitable for Ford manual transmissions in many non Ford boxes with good result. I have used it in Land Rover gearboxes for at least 15 years now, long before LR officially switched to a similar oil back in '96 I think it was.
Infrequent services mean that problems
I have never found this to be the case. All the vehicles I have with extended intervals have pad wear sensors and most others have acoustic warning plates. If the pads are two thirds worn I would prefer they be changed anyhow for my convenience. The cars go in for MOT once a year after the third year anyhow and I always ask for a pre MOT check. There is seldom a problem except with the Land Rover which has a regular number of bush, UJ and other minor jobs done.
That sounds about right. But Lord knows you will find a modern car very undemanding and cheap to run compared with a RR Classic. I know. I've had a few, both petrol and diesel.
PSA (citroen/pug) - look for a 1.9 non-hdi engine. That's the XUD, which is the same engine as was in your Rover. 306 had them in turbo and non-turbo forms.
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.