>>Any Mk3 Cavalier without an ECU
You might struggle to find one. Even basic 16SV engined Cavaliers had an ECU for the ignition, with a management light from launch in 1988/1989.
Perhaps a 1400 one might be rid of all electronic management - I can't remember.
Number_Cruncher
|
"You might struggle to find one. Even basic 16SV engined Cavaliers had an ECU for the ignition, with a management light from launch in 1988/1989."
Perhaps I mean't one with a carb rather than fuel injection and an electronic brain to control it.!
|
|
|
Even basic 16SV engined Cavaliers had an ECU for the ignition with a management light from launch in 1988/1989.
Oooh, I've got one of those ('95) - it's done 164,1NN miles so far, I'm hoping it'll do another 20,000 or 30,000 at least!
Well, now I re-read the above, mine hasn't a side-valved engine at all, it's one of those overhead-cam thingummies (in a GLS) - but I hope it still goes on for a bit, anyway - it cost a couple of hundred, and I've just had the oil changed, too!
|
|
|
|
Rolls-Royces and Bentleys (from the era when they were the same) need a vast amount of low and high-level maintenance and their bodywork (produced, IIRC, in the same factory that made bodywork for 'ordinary' cars) suffers from rust in just the same way - and is, by the nature of the beast, much more expensive to cure.
Hand-made cars are probably more subject to expensive problems in the long term and the myth that Rolls-Royces are built to last forever is just that - a myth.
As outlined above, it's all about whether the potential re-sale price makes it worth going on repairing and servicing it.
|
As outlined above it's all about whether the potential re-sale price makes it worth going on repairing and servicing it.
Very true, although with things like the Morris Minor or VW Beetle there's also the aspect of the car being loved which makes people pay more than 'final value' for restoration costs.
It's clear that some old cars do have excellent parts supply, so a bit like Trigger's Broom, there's the question of whether a reshelled car with replacement engine and gearbox is still the same car!
|
|
Avoid things that cost more than the car to repair and are MOTable - like ABS
|
The ABS in my car doesn't work and it still passed MOT last time :)
usually the brake warning light on dash comes are car is run for some times, not when stationary.
|
The ABS in my car doesn't work and it still passed MOT last time :) usually the brake warning light on dash comes are car is run for some times not when stationary.
>>
I'm guessing the ABS isn't actually part of the MoT then, the MoT tests the efficiency of the braking system to actually stop you?
Chris
|
>>I'm guessing the ABS isn't actually part of the MoT then,
Yes, and no!
Yes in that the ABS light must behave as the manufacturer intended. For example, in many cases, it should come on with the ignition, and go off after the self checking routine has been passed.
No in that there's no easy way to check the actual operation of the system. As most cars are MOTd without any road test, faults like the light coming on when you go over 30mph won't be picked up in an MOT.
As by far the majority of ABS faults do put the light on, the MOT is probably doing a good job, without causing a great extra burden on the MOT procedure - remember, any extra testing has to be paid for in the test fee!
Number_Cruncher
|
|
|
I'm guessing the ABS isn't actually part of the MoT
It is part of the MOT.
www.motuk.co.uk/manual_340.htm
|
No its not -the ABS light is part of the MOT. The test does not test if it actually works or not.
its very very easy to rig up a fake ABS light function.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
>>its very very easy to rig up a fake ABS light function.
Indeed, but it's only an option for the very very stupid.
Number_Cruncher
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very true although with things like the Morris Minor or VW Beetle there's also the aspect of the car being loved which makes people pay more than 'final value' for restoration costs. It's clear that some old cars do have excellent parts supply so a bit like Trigger's Broom there's the question of whether a reshelled car with replacement engine and gearbox is still the same car!
All true, but the point is that it can be done. The 'final value' is peanuts too, the best Minor saloons only fetch a few thousand. It's possible to run them for next to nothing. Get a good one, maintain it, spend £50 and a couple of hours every year or two on rust proofing and it'll last forever. Ask me how I know! Not a car for very long journeys but as a car for local stuff, shopping, station runs, commutes up to 20 or 30 miles etc., not much can touch them for cost per mile. Just be prepared for a bit more diy maintenance or find an old-fashioned local garage.
|
Any car with a devoted following will last for ever - effectively . See Citroen DS21 for example... nice looks horrible rust proofing.
It's all a matter of owners caring enough or spares being cheap enough.See VW Bettle originals..
We ran an original Mini estate for 10 years so I know a little about rust:-(((
Audi A80 is a good bet: unloved now but galvanised and parts cheap...
madf
|
|
The mid-80's to early 90's Vauxhalls are very good and can do huge mileages if routinely serviced. I knew of a 300k Carlton and a 400k Cavalier a few years ago. The Omegas and Vectras that followed are not a shadow on them and after a few years seem to suffer all sorts of ills and in particular expensive electrical problems. Your main problem is finding a good rust free example as people that have a good one tend to hold onto them. The same era Mercedes and Volvos are also very reliable, and capable of massive mileages. Most of the rest struggle to do 80 - 100k.
|
As mentioned in an earlier post, many Peugeots and Citroens built in the 1980s and early 90s are still going strong, with the main factor being that they are very resistant to rust. Even better if they are fitted with a 1.7/1.9 XUD diesel lump. My old 1991 diesel 309 still drove like a dream when I sold it at 11 years old and with 150k on the clock and the 1994 306TD I have is still going strong at 13 years and with just short of 200k on the clock. The only visible rust on the 306 is on the front edge of the bonnet and a small area on the tailgate just beneath the rubber window seal. That aside, the car almost looks like new when washed, with the exception of two missing wheen trims which I can't be bothered to replace!
Martin
|
The OP rambled on about "go on for ever", so we can disregard any vehicle from after - say - 1960.
82% of all Land Rovers ever registered in the UK are still identified by the DVLA as "registered for use on the Queen's highway".
Well done Land Rover, British engineering at its best. Well, it was the best in 1947. And again in 1970. Not much investment since then. It annoys me that the Hun were permitted to pounce upon Rover merely to acquire AWD tech. But we are all good Europeans now.
|
|
|
|
>>Most of the rest struggle to do80 - 100k.
I've read this post a few times, and can only conclude that you mean that most marques other than Vauxhall, Volvo and Mercedes struggled to to over 80-100K.
If that is what you meant, I say that is a load of old rubbish, quite frankly.
Mechanically, an old (1990) 1.4 Nissan Sunny I had was still going very strong at 170K. Indeed, the engine was in far, far better better condition than the 1992 1.6 Cavalier I also had at the time, which had done 180K of mostly motorway miles and had been serviced to a higher standard than the Nissan.
In the Nissan's case, the rot got it (it had spent most of its life in Whitley Bay, on the coast) -- mechanically it was perfect. In the Vauxhall's case, the engine had been rebuilt, the gearbox was shot, and the steering and suspension needed an overhaul.
So to say that "most" other marques were in some way vastly inferior to Vauxhall is a bit spurious. Indeed the smaller Vauxhalls -- Novas and Corsas -- of the time weren't particularly good cars at all.
I'd say that most of the Jap makes, larger Fords, Peugeot/Citroen, VW and Saab were every bit as good mechanically as, if not better than, Vauxhall.
|
I've a Triumph 2000 Mark 1 1964 in daily use, done 212,000 miles. Also a 1993 Volvo 240 on 370,000 miles, used for a daily 80 mile commute.
Neither would be economic to pay to have repaired and serviced, but on a DIY basis they are very cheap and appear to go on forever. The Triumph will probably need major structural repair within the next five years, so may well not be worth keeping alive, but the Volvo is virtually rust free apart from the odd cosmetic touch-up.
Mechanically all the Volvo components last well. Engine, clutch, gearbox, steering rack and axle are original and untouched, as is the catalyst and oxygen sensor. The alternator only did 235,000 miles and the brake discs 350,000.
|
I don't think in terms of "economic to service and repair" with my old cars. Their resale values are at or near rock bottom; if I get more than some hundreds of £ when/if I finally sell them, it will be a pleasant surprise (and I can always hope that their good condition will increase the chances of that happening).
I have the cars to use and enjoy; if money needs to be spent to keep them usable, I spend it. Yes, there may be an extreme event -- e.g. total failure of an autobox -- that may prompt me to dispose of a car by breaking it, but I aim to minimize the risk of that happening by spending on proper maintenance, for which I have to pay because I do not have the mechanical skills.
I guess this is why you will see classics and sub-classics for sale at prices far below the "£XX,000 spent over the past five years". Many would consider that insane, but what price enjoyment and what else do we pay out in spades for other forms of enjoyment (many much less tangible and enduring)?
And I continue to enjoy the absence of depreciation costs.
I only hope that my prospective enjoyment isn't completely wiped out by environmental and "safety" regulation absurdly hostile to old cars.
|
"wiped out by environmental and "safety" regulation absurdly hostile to old cars"
Indeed. I find the environmental considerations particularly hypocritical, as the environmental impact of building a new car is vastly greater than that of running an old car for a few more years, however 'inefficient' it might be.
I'm beginning to wonder if the same applies to these 'low-energy' light bulbs that cost little to run but incorporate electronics and use light-emitting phosphors...
|
|
Mechanically an old (1990) 1.4 Nissan Sunny I had was still going very strong at 170K.
I had a 1990 Sunny which I got rid of last year - it'd only covered 115K but the carb was shot and a replacement was more than the car was worth. It'd lived mainly down south so the bodywork was still in good condition. My current Almera has the same engine, but fuel-injected. I'll be keeping it until the timing chain rattles (usually upwards of 150K with that engine).
Cavaliers and Carltons were good for enormous mileages, but that was Vauxhall's moment of glory. Currently my choice for a reliable long-lived car would be a Honda Accord, pre-2002 Nissan Primera, Toyota Avensis, Mazda 626. Anyone spot a pattern?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
