I've had two 1.4 petrols. I won't have a third.

Both had an appetitie for coil packs. Normally these fail over several days, so you have enough warning to replace them. One, however, failed completely in a day, leaving my wife and daughter stranded. Gear change in both (2001 build, 90000 miles and 2004, 69000 miles) very notchy. Both were nose heavy under braking, and grip from the factory fit Michelin Energy tyres was poor.

They really feel as if they were designed for the 1.9 diesel and fitting the small petrol engine was an afterthought. The 1.4 petrol is chronically underpowered with more than two passengers on board; fuel economy suffers as a result.

The design is very practical - there's a surprising amount of useful space, the height is good for easy access, and there are plenty storage spaces. Safety is good in these, too. Unfortunately, I had three accidents in them (both were written off) but nobody on board ever harmed.

Build quality was terrible. Both cars full of rattling trim, the 2004 worse. Panel fit was poor. I managed to close the boot on the dog's tail once - all she did was wag her tail through the gap between the boot and the body! Rear sunroofs either fail completely or work intermittently. Beware: they can open, then refuse to close again! Both cars were riddled with annoying electrical faults.

If you're still tempted, read the CBCB carefully to pinpoint when Renault quality was at its worst and avoid those cars at all costs. My suspicion is that a basic spec diesel is the safest bet, as these are the cars the domestic French market buys, but I won't be testing my theory with my own money again!

Edit: for those wondering why I was silly enough to buy a second Scenic, the first was my wife's car. The second replaced it after it was written off , as the settlement was only enough to buy a like-for-like replacement. The second one was written off and replaced with a Subaru Forester, with which I'm every bit pleased as I was displeased with the Renaults...

Hard to say without the benefit of inspecting it.
Idle air control valves do fail on these and poor idle/cut is a symptom. Be warned they are staggeringly expensive from dealer (like £700+ !!) did one late last year and fitted a s/hand one I got for £45, owner very grateful. Check out one of the MX5 forums for leads on cheaper replacement parts.

comments anyone?

I don't really see a problem in what they are proposing. Why should some vehicles be exempt from annual MOT testing from the day they are built until the day that they are scrapped?

I work for a breakdown/recovery operator and we currently have around twenty 'breakdown' vehicles (ie lift & tow only) that are exempt from annual testing amongst our extensive fleet. These range from spec lifts right up to five axle wreckers.

The vast majority of these breakdown vehicles of ours do attend the test station each year and come away with a Roadworthiness Certificate which is pretty much an unofficial version of an MOT. We have to do this because some of the contracts that we do require us to have certified and inspected vehicles & equipment etc.

But at the end of the day it is no real hardship as far as I am concerned. Whether or not your vehicle is MOT exempt it should still be maintained to a roadworthy standard at all times. Driving through the test lane to prove that you are capable of this once a year is easy.

QUOTE:....""has this snow actually been that bad. has anyone had any real issues caused specifically by the snow. I have manged to go about my buisness no problem. A few matches called off but so what.""

We had 2 days here in Somerset where a lot of roads. even in town, were impossible to use - cars and lorries getting stuck. It's not the depth of snow, it's the fact that it was hard-packed by the first few vehicles that managed to get through, and it was on top of ice as well.

On the morning of the worst snow, cars could get up our road to begin with, but later, with the snow compacted, they couldn't.