Yeah, if size is a problem but Almera sized is a possible, then go for that. Still much better than a tiny car.
Lots of options at this price point -- would be churlish to discount say a Hyundai Accent as well. You'd be able to get an 02-plate 1.3 for about £12-1400. These are quite economical in my experience; I never got less than 40mpg from a tank. They're reliable (just get one on a Y plate or later, as the older ones had slightly lightweight build, and the W/X reg ones had a clutch problem which should have been sorted by this age but you never know). Not the best to drive but in fairness they're not that bad either -- the roadholding and ride are pretty good; the body roll less so.
Usual suspects like Astra (much better than a Vectra IMO), Almera, Corolla, Citroen Xsara (cheap and underrated), Mazda 323 all good. Focus and Golf will be out of your price range (hold their value too well to make sense at £1200), the 307s and Meganes were dogs reliability-wise in the early 2000s and I'd avoid quite honestly, and the 306 is getting a bit long in the tooth now considering what else is available.
Plenty of options. For cheap, underrated cars the Accent, Xsara and Almera are all strong choices.
|
Adding nothing new, but another vote for spending £600 not £1200 - you get exactly the same chances of reliability and lose out on the money to fix problems.
And another vote for not buying a tin can on wheels but instead buying a proper sized car. Unless you really go the whole hog and get yourself a MK ii Polo. 20 years old and good for another 20 and less than the cost of an off the peg suit.
|
hyundai accent 02 plate 1.3 si 5 door with around 60k.
|
I will have a look at the hyundai accent, never been in one before
(My comment earlier on the Mondeo TDCI was a joke as it appears to be always recommended no matter what the original poster specified)
|
|
Mondeos are so last year, Subaru Legacies are the default option now (in fact, come to think of it you might get a half decent leggy one for that money.....)
|
Some posters here would suggest FORD Mondeo or another FORD car even when you've specifically said that you don't want FORD :)
I would personally say stay away from Polo in your price range 1.4 in particular because they seem to have gearbox issues!
|
I would personally say stay away from Polo in your price range 1.4 in particular because they seem to have gearbox issues!
Not to mention that VAG's petrol engines tend to have pathetic power outputs. Who else makes a 1.4 litre that only puts out 60bhp? 0-60 time of 14.4 secs for the 1.4 is absolutely dire. Hyundai Accent 1.3 puts out 84bhp, and gets to 60 in 12.5 seconds. Fuel consumption and weight are almost identical, but of course VAG cars are the best engineered(!!) Buy an Accent.
|
|
I was just going to say, for that money I'd track down my old 1.4 P reg Polo and use the change to fit a new gearbox!
|
I was just going to say for that money I'd track down my old 1.4 P reg Polo and use the change to fit a new gearbox!
Oh come, surely with the benefit of hindsight you can see what a terrible car that 1.4 Polo was :p
|
I'd track down my old 1.4 P reg Polo and use the change to fit a new gearbox!
You'd have to fit a gearbox out of a 1.0 model - the lower gearing might make it perform like a 1.4!
|
|
Not to mention that VAG's petrol engines tend to have pathetic power outputs.
Oh, and before someone comes along saying "ahhh but they're tuned for torque over power", the Accent 1.3 has more torque than the Polo 1.4 as well!
|
Citroen Xsara?
Not too big, rather unfashionable so cheap for good specs? Quite a few around in your price range.
--
Phil
|
Yes, Xsara as I said is an option as well.
Like I say, at this sort of price I would suggest anything but a VW!!! The cars are OK, but no more than that. Korean cars are no less well engineered, Japanese cars more so and both are cheaper. Likewise Ford and GM -- both cheaper than VW and both every bit as good.
If you want a VW, get a Skoda or a Seat. Leave the badge snobbery to other people.
There is only one good time to buy a VW, and that is when brand new. Any time else, and they're just overpriced.
Xsaras, Accents, Almeras, and even well-maintained Fiat Bravos are better options when you get to bargain basement, because you are not paying a premium for image. And who the heck is going to admire anyone who drives around in a 12-year-old Volkswagen? It's all a load of hogwash this image business. VWs are fine, but only at half-price!
|
"If you want a VW, get a Skoda or a Seat..."
Not an Octavia or Toledo though. Size is an issue for parking the car, according to the OP: both are based on the Golf platform but have larger overhangs at the back for the hatch and boot respectively.
In Golf size, the Seat Leon is shorter overall. For size, the most suitable Skoda is probably a Fabia, of which the 100bhp 1.4 petrol or 1.9 TDI are the best options.
TBH, for ?1000, age/mileage/condition are more important considerations than make.
|
Leave the badge snobbery to other people.
Skoda Felicia could be a good bet - the 1.3 is chain-cam, and isn't quite as woefully gutless as a Polo 1.4. How on Earth do VWs hold their value so well? IMO it's purely marketing - this image of quality. How else do you shift a 1.2 litre car that weighs just shy of a tonne and only puts out 55bhp? It certainly won't shift on its own! ;-)
|
The 1.3 Felicia was 53bhp, but the car itself is light. Post '98 cars have power assist steering as standard; post '00 cars were facelifted and more cheerful looking.
There was also a 1.6 which is much more sprightly, as insurance group isn't a primary concern for the OP.
|
|
Il also go for the felicia, step sis was looking at a 99 T reg 1.3 with 54000K on clock earlier this year, seller wanted £850. Looked spot on no rust engine sounded sweet. But no image said go for an L reg vento tdi with 150000 on clock. TBF the vento is a good car too but would rather her had go for the skoda. I think they are nice cars, simple enines and fairly cheap to run. Get friendly with a Euro motor factor like GSF or Eurocarparts or an indie and kepping it up and running with the change might last two years.
|
The 1.3 Felicia was 53bhp but the car itself is light. Post '98 cars have power assist steering as standard; post '00 cars were facelifted and more cheerful looking.
Facelift was 1998, range was discontinued in 2000 and replaced with Fabia.
|
Yes the Skoda Felicia is a very good deal, and further highlights the deals that can be had if you stick your thumb over the badge on the bonnet.
Daewoo and Proton offer more of the same -- simple, outdated but basically sound and durable transport for a pittance. Proton in particular -- yes they are woeful to drive, but they don't rust and the engines and transmissions run forever, as they are essentially Mitsubishi Lancers which are your classic bulletproof bland Jap-box.
|
I will add the Felicia to my list. The badge does not really come into it, provided the car itself does not look like a brick Not sure about Proton. The Mitsubishi also may be a good car but I have heard price of their spares has killed off many a good example before their time.
Undecidecd about Polo. I had a 97 diesel model 2 yrs ago (do not need a diesel now) Parts were farly expensive when they could not be sourced from ECP or the like and also the models seem to suffer more than some "lesser" makes from rust. A MK2.5 polo would fit the bill but they are only 2 door and are getting long in the tooth now
|
my opinion is always go for the newest low miler in the size you want.
Therefore, a one mature owner Skoda Felicia - is going to be cheap and looked after and easy to mend ( should it neeed it ), with cheap bits.
No street cred- so at that price you are a pauper anyway- fair economy and adequate, legal limit, performance.
Sub £1200 , and no one will nick it , or try.
|
Take care with old Felicias, they can turn into a money pit.
I know, SWMBO has had a 1.3 GLi from new since 1998.
In addition to the throttle body and alternator problems at around 8 years / 80K it now sports rust bubbling from under the trim all over the body, and the (power) steering rack is getting the worse for wear. The rack cost is probably more than the car is worth.
It is so ashamed of itself that the centre of the front badge fell out recently!
|
my opinion is always go for the newest low miler in the size you want.
I'd personally avoid such cars for this budget. Likely to be older than higher mileage cars, likely to have spent their entire life crashing over speedramps around town and being bashed into in carparks, or spending large amounts of time unused.
Rather have something substantial that someone has used for proper trips, not to take the kids a mile down the road to school.
Cheaper and more kit for your money as well given this countries absolute love of mileage above anything else.
|
"this countries absolute love of mileage above anything else"
Indeed. This is a recurrent theme on these boards, but it never fails to astonish me how many people regard 100k miles as 'worn out'. I guess that dealers tend to perpetuate the myth by highlighting low mileage examples, or in extremis, reducing them!
|
my opinion is always go for the newest low miler in the size you want.... Felicia
Crumbs. A rust bucket felicia with one elderly owner, 12k miles on the clock; coked up, worn-out clutch and zero comforts, or toys.
Or a high-mileage fully-specced luxobarge for half the price.
You're so right; I'll have the Felicia too. Not.
|
> Not sure about Proton. The Mitsubishi also may be a good car but I have heard price of their spares has killed off many a good example before their time.
It is a bit Russian Roulette with Mitsubishi due to parts prices, but that is mainly for the larger models. Colts and Lancers, while they can be somewhat expensive for some parts, are not particularly any more expensive than a whole lot of other makes (like VW, as you have discovered).
What you have to bear in mind with the Japanese cars is that, while the parts are more expensive, you usually don't need them as often. It evens itself out, and quite honestly the Jap cars are usually still much less expensive as the major components most often just refuse to die. Vast numbers of Japanese cars go to the crusher at perhaps 15-20 years old suffering from nothing more than age-related tattiness, their electrics and mechanical components still with years of life left in them.
There's a guy in our village who acquired an old Datsun 180B Bluebird estate of around 1978 vintage from his Grandad about 10 years ago. Because it had been rust-protected from new at some expense, and re-done every through years, the bodywork is still in excellent condition. You wouldn't think this car had done 220,000 miles -- the engine is as sweet as a nut, never seems to need anything doing to it, doesn't consume any oil and is still, after all these years quieter than most new cars.
If these cars are looked after properly, they are fantastically durable.
|
I agree with jase above.
In addition, if things do go wrong, Japanese cars are usually easy to work on due to design. Contrast that with some Peugeot Citroen designs... (wiring junctions where water gets in etc).
An elderly 10 years old Japanese car well maintained is unwanted/unloved/cheap and lots of car for your money.. and easy to drive...
madf
|
|
|
|
