You can live without them, especially cruise control which is a dangerous and unnecessary gadget in the UK with our congested roads. It drives me mad when people don’t adjust their speeds according to their situation because they’re bumbling along on cruise control with their mind off the job at hand. I’d ban it.

Much as i respect most of what you say, and agree with most of your suggestions, i disagree entirely with this statement SLO.

Firstly, people who are not paying attention to the task of driving are going to be doing so with or without cruise control. I don't see any way that cruise control can be described as dangerous, unless you are already a bad or incompetent driver, in which case it is not the cruise control that is the problem.

Although i first experienced cruise control working at a Saab dealer in the 90's, it wasn't until Stagecoach brought in a fleet of Volvo B7 coaches that i started using cruise control on a regular basis. And frankly it was a boon, in quite a few different circumstances, not least of which was maintaining 30mph in certain situations. For example, if doing a run into Aberdeen you have a straight run of about 2.5 miles at a 30mph limit and when the roads are quiet in the evening it is very easy for the speed to creep up, so set the cruise control to 30mph. It is a similar situation in both the town i live, and the one half way to Aberdeen, where there is a long stretch with a 30mph limit. Out on the main roads, i would also pretty much always be using the cruise control on the bus

Another example is my wife. She gets painful cramps in her feet if she has to keep them in the same position for long periods, so were it not for cruise control, she wouldn't be able to drive very far at all. Being able to stretch, or move your foot around from time to time, makes for a much more comfortable journey, which in turn IMO, would make the driver safer, not less safe, as you wouldn't have the distraction of your discomfort.

You don't like cruise control and that is fair enough, it's your choice. But it is just that, a choice, and to suggest that others, such as myself, who use (properly) and very much appreciate cruise control are dangerous, is just wrong.

Back to the thread though, and because of how much i like and use cruise control, i completely understand why the OP would be specifically wanting a car with it. I have mentioned a few times on the forum about how i have been thinking about opting out of of the Motability car my wife gets, in favour of buying an older car instead. Having cruise control would be a key factor in the choice, to the extent that i have looked into companies who will fit an aftermarket cruise control system. But i also know that certain versions of the Nissan Note 1.6 auto do have it fitted as standard equipment (along with electronic folding mirrors, which would also be desirable due to the narrowness of my street).

As for the bluetooth, not really something i am bothered about, but things like this can be bought for very little,

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wireless-Bluetooth-FM-Transmitt...e

Edited by badbusdriver on 06/04/2019 at 14:53

Surprised you think that being a bus driver yourself bbd. I witness on a daily basis inappropriate use of cruise control with people creeping past my bus in the fast lane while I’m indicating to pull out instead of putting the foot down adjusting their speed and overtaking which is solely what the other lanes are for. Instead they sit there oblivious to the fact they’re blocking slower moving vehicles from moving out to overtake themselves. I’ve seen a big increase in this as cruise control became more widespread.

You can't possibly know who is or is not using cruise control. I often see overtaking manoeuvres on single carriageway roads where the overtaker is just creeping past at a slightly faster speed. I very much doubt they are using cruise control, i think they are just basing their speed on the limit, i.e., 60mph (overtaking another vehicle doing 55mph). If i am overtaking in such circumstances, i would inevitably end up going past 60mph to get back into my side of the road as quickly as possible, but not everyone thinks like that. The car drivers you see 'preventing' you from pulling out are under no obligation to do so and without having been a truck or bus driver, would (understandably) have no ability to look at the situation from your perspective. I feel you may be seeing things which aren't there and these people are just going about their journey at the speed they choose. That they are not 'helping' you, i'm sure under most instances, is not due to any deliberate action, and while (in your view) inconsiderate, it certainly isn't dangerous.

I also firmly believe that it does slow down response time in an emergency. It takes a split second longer to lift your foot from rest on the floor plus you begin to slow immediately as your foot comes off the accelerator if you don’t have or use cruise control. That split second can make all the difference.

Maybe under certain circumstances, but again, mainly through not paying enough attention to your surroundings. But consider this, when driving using cruise control, i often have my foot next to the brake pedal. So were something to suddenly happen in front of me, i'd definately be able to hit the brakes before someone with their foot on the throttle pedal could. Maybe not much quicker, but as you correctly point out, that split second can make all the difference. Also, if you were (for example) going through a section of roadworks with a 40 or 50mph limit and average speed cameras, the the extra concentration you put into making sure you do not exceed that limit with your foot on the throttle pedal would be something which would reduce your awareness on what is going on around you, which in turn would reduce your reactions if something happens. Probably wouldn't be a big difference, but again, that split second could make all the difference.

Like i said before, it is your choice whether or not you like or use cruise control. It may be your opinion that people like myself who use cruise control (quite happily and safely) are a danger on the road, but that doesn't make it fact.

My last car was a leased 9th gen 2014 Civic 1.6 diesel which I had for 84k trouble free miles and it averaged over my ownership about 70 mpg (calculated brim-brim, not computer). These are pretty reliable cars, I never had any DPF issues so I doubt you would with your intended use. These don't have many issues in general, one or two complaints of failing injectors at about 80k miles and juddering clutches when the cars are cold, but in all reliable for a diesel.

Current car is an 09 plate 8th gen Civic 1.8 petrol. I really like this too, but make no mistake, they don't have the comfiest ride - this is where the 9th gen fares much better -this averages just over 40 mpg, the best I've had for a tank is 52 mpg (again, calculated). The 8th gen 2.2 diesel does seem to have more problems than the 1.8, notably clutch wear, some timing chain issues (which could be attributed to using poor oil, extended change periods etc), but they don't seem to have vastly greater economy than the 1.8, but will have far more in gear performance, plus none of the 8G 2.2's have a DPF, unlike this engine when fitted to early 9G's.

Bluetooth, cruise etc should be on pretty much all 9th gens, on the 8th gens, go for a 09 model year facelift on to have an integrated USB and aux - you can tell the facelift cars from the little "nostrils" on the front perspex grill and the reverse lights are slightly longer than pre-facelift cars. Some 8th gens can have issues with rust on the leading edge of the roof where it meets the windscreen, many have been resprayed under warranty. ES / EX spec 8th gens will have cruise and later models even had infotainment screens. For your budget you can have a very late model 8th gen, or an early 9th gen (just in budget I'd guess), but the civinfo forum is a good resource if you wish to check out any pitfalls.

Edited by Sprice on 07/04/2019 at 10:47

Edited by SLO76 on 12/04/2019 at 23:15

Edited by SLO76 on 13/04/2019 at 09:04

No warning lights on the dash other than a tpms error...?

Noticed that on the photo's too. Bit concerned that they haven't resolved this fault, can't help wondering they'll try to sell it without fixing this fault. If the tyres just need inflating, surely they would have done that before taking the photo's.

It can be an MOT fail on vehicles equipped with TPMS from 2012 onwards. The MOT Testers manual is a bit ambiguous on this point though (Section 5):

(h) Tyre pressure monitoring system:

i. malfunctioning or tyre obviously under-inflated Minor

ii. obviously inoperative Major

It's a red warning light on the dash, which could mean a system fault (Inoperative). The lights I've seen on cars to indicate a low pressure have been yellow!

Now you've seen the car and know it's reg number, have you checked out it's MOT history?

Edit: Just spotted that it's got a yellow light on the dash and a red symbol on the info screen, don't know how an MOT tester will interpret that! I would want to see that it had been resolved before handing over any money.

Edited by FiestaOwner on 14/04/2019 at 09:06

Agreed, the TPMS came on my 2014 Civic a couple of times, if there's a slight pressure discrepancy between some of the tyres, the car will register this as an anomaly in rolling radius and flag the light. It will also come on when a tyre or two have been changed.

Make sure pressures are as per the plaque inside door-jamb, then reinitialise via the on board computer using the steering wheel controls. Note, on later models the 'reinitialise' option disappears when the car is moving, and ISTR that on earlier 9th gen models, a lot of options in the menu disappear when the car moves and are only visible when stationary; this was a criticism at the time and was rectified on 'circa' post 2013 cars. If you do look at any 9th gen petrol 1.8's, note there seems to be an occurrence of excess oil consumption that affected some 2012 models, luckily these cars and the 8th gen have both low oil level and oil pressure warnings. You also state in an earlier post about cruise control being a must, the red 2.2D car in the link doesn't have this, but I'm sure you already know this.

Edited by Sprice on 14/04/2019 at 11:39

No warning lights on the dash other than a tpms error...?

I wouldn't get too excited about the TPMS warning just yet, they maybe just haven't looked in the manual!. When the TPMS warning came on in our Jazz, i mistakenly assumed simply topping up the air would put it out. But no, you have to reset it through the onboard computer thingy, and that was a real faff, took me ages!. Of course, for all i know, this may be the case for all of these systems?.

But anyway, before writing the car off for this, maybe just ask the garage?

You may well be right, but I'm very suspicious about cars for sale with warning lights on. Surely the garage would have noticed this, and would have checked the pressures and reset the system. TPMS has been about for years, they should be familiar with it.

You’re putting too much confidence in sales staff. They’re lazy and rarely have a clue about what they’re selling.

Absolutely - and why tinker with fiddly things before anyone shows interest in the car? They probably won't buy anyway, so wait until someone asks about it.

“You may well be right, but I'm very suspicious about cars for sale with warning lights on. Surely the garage would have noticed this, and would have checked the pressures and reset the system. TPMS has been about for years, they should be familiar with it.” You’re putting too much confidence in sales staff. They’re lazy and rarely have a clue about what they’re selling. It’ll be a low tyre most likely but get them to verify it.

It looked like a low tyre pressure. One of the tyres had been replaced for its MOT it seemed.

I believe these have a Deflation Warning System rather than a full TPMS anyway, so it is unlikely to be anything a major.

Still deciding the 2.2, out of the 3 engines in the Civic this is the one I wanted the least, but the condition seemed okay for a 7 year old car, plus it had FSH until last year.

What about that 1.8 - SLO's third link? A little above your budget but you might get them down to near £6,000.

I can quite understand why the OP if doing a few miles a day wants a few creature comforts.

I agree a decent stereo can make a big difference to the enjoyment of a car and I consider bluetooth (for phone at least) an essential for many people. Loads of cars have these now so why settle for a buzz box without?

Civic a good choice although if comfort and stereo is your thing I'll throw a wildcard in and suggest a Volvo.

Any Volvo S60 or V60 will have great seats and all but the very base model a very good stereo and bluetooth. Your budget should get you a 2.0 with the 5-cylinder diesel which in 163ps form has loads of punch, loads of torque and will do 45-50mpg. Find a SE Lux and it might even have the radar cruise as well. I'd go for a manual if planning to take it to high miles but I've seen these with 200k on driving pretty much like new.

Edited by SLO76 on 14/04/2019 at 19:52