Hi Folks,
I came across a 2005 1.6 Lancer estate with 24 K on the clock. I'm looking to replace my Xsara HDi with another workshorse type car.
Physically, the car looks fresh and it feels ok to drive. But there was a fair bit of 'emulsion' under oil filler cap. This was also evident on teh dipstick. On questioning teh salesman, I was told that the car was in the dealeship for over 4 months and was only been driven a handful of miles a week.
So my questions are:
[1] Would such usage account for the emulsion?
[2] Does anyone have bad experiences of a Lancer??
After the horror of owning a Citroen, I wish to avaoid further lemons!!! My Xsara is at a Citroen dealer for over a week with electrical problems and there is no sign of a solution!!
I understand that the Lancer is a plain car but I can live with that as long as it's reliable.
Thanks
MPH
Edited by Webmaster on 28/11/2007 at 10:02
|
A man after my own heart! We've just bought a 55 Lancer Estate. It replaced an appallingly unreliable Ford Galaxy 2.3 (at 160K the engine was still great but not much else was) which had in turn suceeded a Citroen Xantia, and a Vectra. All were good products ruined by appaling unreliability.
We live in a rural area and totally depend on our cars, from which we need low running costs, and 100% reliability. Over the same period we have also had 2 Honda Civics which have clocked up over 300K. Our current 12 year old 140K Civic has only needed a Fan Switch and Door Handle above the usual tyres/brakes/exhausts. This and previous experience with Toyotas has convinced me that only the Japenese can consistantly make reliable cars. So when I found a 2 year Lancer with 22K on the clock, for £4995 I couldn't get the deal done fast enough! This was from an independent as it had been owned by someone in the forces and used in Germany for 2 years on the tax free deal (and included a pair of LHD headlights in the boot!).
Overall I'm very impressed. It's not a cutting edge design (and is about to be replaced) but all the controls work smoothly with particularly nice switchgear, the engine is wonderfully smooth and free revving and the gearchange precise. The trim materials are cheap looking and frumpy but are no doubt durable. The luggage space is rather small for this class (Focus size) although there are a number of hidden compartments under the deck. The rear seat back only drops onto the cusion so all out capacity isn't big.
I found the steering a bit overlight in slow corners and the Bridgestone Turanza tyres aren't the grippiest and are hopeless in mud (got bogged down first time out it !) even if they look set to do 50k on the front and 100K on the back.
The above niggles are academic though if it provides the tick-tock reliability I'm yearning for. All the space/comfort/bells and whistles are worth dafodils (naughty word replaced) when you're stranded on lonely Moorland road.
Regarding you're specific complaint, yes it's unlikely the emulsion is sinster, is the coolant free of any traces of oil? You should have 3 years manufacturers warranty in the worst case.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 04/12/2007 at 18:48
|
The chances are that the emulsion is the result of very short drive cycle (shunting the car around the dealership). Having said that, if I were buying then I would ask to witness a 'sniff test' of the coolant header tank - just get any place with a four-gas analyser to wave the probe over the top of the header tank. More than a couple of ppm of HC detected mean possible head gasket problem and further investigation.
Mitsi's are generally good cars in my ecperience. Gearbox action can be a bit baulky/notchy (weak synchro), but that's a characteristic that can be alleviated by going to a thinner g/b oil (e.g. a 75W-85 GL4). Be aware that Mitsi spares prices can sting a bit...
I have never driven a 1.6 Lancer but I suspect it could be a bit sluggish. I think there is 2 litre version??
Also, have you considered a Subaru Impreza Wagon 2.0 (non-turbo)? Heavier on petrol than the Lancer I suspect, and probably not as roomy in the load area, but very tough, reliable and very nice to drive, especially in bad road conditions. If you can stretch to a '55 reg. you can get the newer version with the 160ps engine which would be a lot more fun than the Lancer.
|
There is a 2.0 Sport Estate, but is significantly thirstier (33 v 41 Comb' Mpg), more expensive to tax (£205 v £165 pa) and insure (Gp 12 v 9), and costs about £1500 more to buy than the 1.6 Equippe.
The Subaru is a tempting proposition, they are justifiably popular in rural areas and a car I would like to own myself. But even outside the main dealer network they are hard to find and in a different class pricewise (£3-4 K+ more year for year) to the Lancer. Although they have an excellent reputation for reliability, they equally have a reputation for being expensive to run.
The appeal of the Lancer 1.6 is that for just £6k (and possibly less with haggling) you can buy a well equipped and built two year old Japanese family estate with a years unlimited mileage manufacturers warranty from a franchised dealer.
A search on Autotrader suggests the only vehicle in this size class to offer the same value for money is the Chevy Tacuma, and looks are only one of the reasons I wouldn?t consider one of those!
|
|
|
