Get a mk4 Astra - the Aisin-Warner autobox used by Vauxhall, Volvo, Lexus etc is much more reliable than the autoboxes used by Ford - in fact Ford are now using Aisin-Warner!
The mk4 Astra had a 12 year anti-corrosion warranty so there will stiil be some years left on the warranty.
Get the 1.6 16v automatic, the 1.6 8v is gutless and the 1.8 16v uses more fuel.
|
|
He'll be perfectly happy with the 1.6 for that profile. Good engine, be prepared for rear wheel bearing failure (very obvious, and not dangerous) any time after 50k.
|
I had a 53 reg 1.6 Zetec manual as a hire car from work which I picked up with delivery miles, and returned two weeks later with 2.5k on the clock (I was doing the miles at the time!). I can vouch for the 1.6 being a really nice engine. It's free revving, very smooth, and more than enough for general A to B driving.
Disappointing economy though. Even as a manual and doing a lot of motorway driving I never got more than low 30's out of it. The Focus is not a light car though - almost certainly weighs more than his old Cavalier!
Cheers
DP
|
|
Must agree with DP. I had a manual 1.6, and saw similar savage lack of economy. The Focus II TDCi 110 I own now is little better (recently saw 39mpg out of a tankful). I am very disappointed with official Ford figures for a range of models, and despite being rated officially lower, because they're more indictative of ACTUAL economy, manufacturers like Citroen and Toyota have proved better in my experience - I suspect this is because the cars I refer to have less savage first thru third gear ratios, making town driving less harsh on their models (ZX, C3 and Celica). If this is the case, the automatic may be better, having possibly taller ratios?
|
Re RT - the Focus 1.6 auto is renown for being bullet proof, nothing much wrong with Astras and a 1.8 would be quicker though for a small auto the Focus is great.
Re DP's hire car, it was brand new, ecomony would have been much better from 10k onwards.
Re Y2, my TDCi 130 averages well over 45 mpg, I had a C-Max 1.6 loan car from new (so not loosened up) and did 1200 or so miles and that averaged nearly 50, get yoir checked.
|
|
|
|
|
I have an 02 1.6 manual Focus which I've had from new.On a regular 350 mile motorway round trip i get high 40's and combined motoring gives me 40 mpg,am i just lucky?
|
I have an 02 1.6 manual Focus ......... combined motoring gives me 40 mpg am i just lucky?
No, you're not just lucky. In summer I get an overall average (calculated over periods of a month at a time) in the high 30s from my 03/03 2 litre Focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
the 1.6 8v is gutless
I can't agree with this. My brother in law bought one at auction for his mum and I collected it from the auction site for him. I thought it drove beautifully. No fireball of course, but zipped effortlessly up to 60-70 mph without any fuss at all and in Sport mode felt really quite nippy.
Maybe you drove a bad one, or I drove an exceptionally good one.
They're dirt cheap. This was a 3yr old ex-motability car with 19,000 miles on the clock and he paid something stupid like £5800 for it. Not as sharp to drive as a Focus, but not bad either, and a heck of a lot of car for the money.
Cheers
DP
|
|
RT: what years were the Mark IV Astra produced? I'm not expert on written detail of car marks!
|
Astra mk4, also known as Astra-G, were built from '98 to '04 when the mk5 Astra-H was introduced.
Some listings will show the Astra-G continuing up to '06 because the mk4 convertible was kept in production after the mk5 hatch/estates were introduced.
|
|
DP - definitions of gutless vary - the Astra-G 1.6 8v had only 74bhp - as an automatic max speed was 101mph and 0-60 in 15.5 seconds - at 1100kg, it's no lightweight but then it is marginally bigger than a Focus.
|
max speed was 101mph and 0-60 in 15.5 seconds
I am genuinely shocked. It felt way, way quicker than that.
My Mondeo is supposed to do 0-60 in 12.5 seconds, and I reckon the Astra felt perkier.
Ah well, it shows my butt-o-meter's calibration is way off! ;-)
Cheers
DP
|
Sorry to drag this up again, but I drove the car again at the weekend and had a look under the bonnet. It's a multipoint injection engine, and I still can't believe the 0-60 time is 15.5 seconds. It's a really lively little thing.
Were there SPI and MPI versions? 74 bhp doesn't sound like a lot from a 1.6 with MPI, but probably about right for SPI.
It's an eight valve, SOHC engine with a black cam cover and VAUXHALL in big white lettering. Black cam cover aside, it looks virtually identical to the engine in my old mk2 Cavalier SRI, even down to the inlet manifold design.
Not that important in the scheme of things I know, but I'm curious now.
Cheers
DP
|
|
|
|
I don't know when Astra G models had a 12 yr anti-corrosion warranty, because my 2002 model definitely came with a 6 year 'corrosion perforation' warranty. As for economy the 125hp 1.8 manual is very good, and will do 38/39 on a long run, low to mid 30's in 'normal' use. It's actually slightly better than my Astra H with the new 1.8 VVt. There's progress for you!
JS
|
I don't know when Astra G models had a 12 yr anti-corrosion warranty
Pre 1st Oct 2000 = 12 years from 1st registration.
From 1st Oct 2000 = 6 years from 1st registration.
|
|
|
According to the trip computer, our manual 2.0 Ghia 2001 estate only does 29-30 over the shortish journeys it usually get used for, but on a round trip from Reading to Nottingham last weekend got up to 38 (M40-42-1). Speed was an indicated 75-80 most of the time. The computer's 'miles left in the tank' reading just kept going up all the way there!
Despite initial misgivings I really like it now- engine isn't one you particularly want to rev, but what it does have is easily available; it feels gutsy to me. Only had a brief test drive in a 1.6 prior to trying the 2.0, and definitely preferred the 2.0; don't do a lot of miles so consumption not the main deciding factor. Haven't driven a 1.8.
Not had it a year yet though so can't comment on reliability (fingers crossed...).
|
I had a Focus 1.6 auto while our Honda Jazz was being repaired.
It semed hard work to get going because the accelerator had such a strong spring.
It did about 35mpg.
While I had it I ran a tape measure over it.
The Focus has the same legroom front/back as the Jazz, and is only 2" wider between the front doors.
The boot is 2"" deeper, but is not as high to the parcel shelf,and not so high right near the bumper because of the slope of the rear window of the Focus.
The Jazz does about 45mpg through the year.
The seats of the Focus do not fold down as easily as the Jazz, nor as verastile.
In other words, I think the Jazz is more space efficient than the Focus, while being 19" shorter.
Would your friend look at a Jazz?
|
|
|
According to the trip computer ............
I'm on my second 2.0 Ghia and I've learned to treat the trip computer as merely a toy ~ it behaved similarly in both cars.
(a) The average mpg figure reads to a tenth of a mpg but the reading usually changes by 0.4 or 0.5 mpg. It seems to have preferred readings such as 37.7, 38.2. 38.7, 39.2 etc with nothing in between.
(b) If you add the distance remaining figure to the distance travelled since the last fill-up you should get the range of the tank. I've found that immediately prior to filling up this calculated range consistently comes to about 500 miles, but the indicated range immediately after filling up is consistently about 440 miles.
|
|
Tha Jazz I'd guess is pricier as it holds value better than Ford. But an interesting idea, which I'll pass on.
|
|
|
|
The computer's 'miles left in the tank' reading just kept going up all the way there!
It's possible for this to occur. The miles remaining is calculated from the amount of fuel left in the tank multiplied by the average mpg of either the last 600 miles (or whatever) or since the last reset. If you drive more economically than the average stored in the computer, so that the average goes up, the miles remaining can go up.
|
It's possible for this to occur.
Oh yes, I understood what was happening. I was just surprised at how much difference going from urban to motorway driving made to the consumption.
|
Many, perhaps most, trip computers calculate range based on fuel consumption over the last 20 miles and the fuel remaining.
Do 20 miles around town and then continue into the country at a steady 60 and the displayed range can increase substantially, despite continuing to use fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
