|
Of the cars mentioned thus far I've owned the following:
2007 2.0 Auto CRV (petrol) - this was 4x4, had a lot of room (and a big boot) and drove well. Interior doesn't wear well and mine had a suspect diff. I ran it for 3K miles and managed an average of just over 20 mpg.
2009 Qasqai 1.6 Visia (petrol) - this was 2WD and was only chosen as a result of a unmissable lease deal. It averaged low to mid 30's MPG over 20K miles / 2 years. I had issues with the rear suspension, which were covered under warranty. The car was reasonable to drive, although noisey on the motorway, due to the "low" gearing - 70 mph = 3600 rpm.
2009 Skoda Yeti 1.2 TSi (petrol) - again 2WD and a marked improvement over the Qashqai, Fun to own, quite distinctive and reasonably cheap to run. My original "review" / thoughts from 2010 can be found here: tinyurl.com/c88bfvo
2012 Skoda Yeti Urban 2.0 TDi (110 BHP) - again 2WD, but diesel this time. Economy in the mid 40's, although I'm told this will improve once the engine "loosens up". A generaly happy little car and not a bad spec - sat-nav, bluetooth, climate control etc. Running winter tyres this year (with 16" rims) after getting stuck the TSi Yeti repeatedly stuck in the snow.
I've also driven the following:
Suzuki SX4 - odd little car with very poor residual values and limited interior space. Cheap to buy and probably quite reliable. Not sure about the Fiat parts though!
A work colleague has a Mitsubishi ASX and rates it very highly. Nice looking car with plently of kit, but expensive in 4WD guise and very limited dealer network.
Old shape Honda CRV 2.0 (petrol) - enormously reliable (good friend ran one for 100K miles / 10 years with no more han routine maintenance), roomy and robust.
Old shape Toyota RAV4 2WD - very limited space in 3 door and didn't drive that well Noisey and poorly equipped. Reliable though.
I have also recently looked around the Dacia Duster, but found the base models poorly equipped and the higher specced models close in price to more main stream models - Yeti / Qashqai etc. I suspect a second hand Yeti for instance may well provide a better ownership prospect than a new Duster. Certainly my first Yeti had excellent residual values, shedding just over £1K in 1 year.
Edited by Seant on 09/11/2012 at 20:09
|
|
''I have also recently looked around the Dacia Duster, but found the base models poorly equipped and the higher specced models close in price to more main stream models -''
Seant, the point about Dacias lower spec Dusters is that some people actually want lower spec, not everyone wants climate control (what a ludicrous title, like calling chips french fries) or cruise or remote electric mirrors or even some bluetooth carp, some of us still turn our lights on and remember to switch on the wipers on when we can't see out the front..:-)
Be interesting to see how the Duster fares, i'll be watching closely, could be an ideal cheap robust motor for me when its cheap as french fries at 3 years old...petrol of course don't want one of those DMF or DPF thingys biding its time to bite me on the bum.
|
''I have also recently looked around the Dacia Duster, but found the base models poorly equipped and the higher specced models close in price to more main stream models -''
Seant, the point about Dacias lower spec Dusters is that some people actually want lower spec, not everyone wants climate control (what a ludicrous title, like calling chips french fries) or cruise or remote electric mirrors or even some bluetooth carp, some of us still turn our lights on and remember to switch on the wipers on when we can't see out the front..:-)
Be interesting to see how the Duster fares, i'll be watching closely, could be an ideal cheap robust motor for me when its cheap as french fries at 3 years old...petrol of course don't want one of those DMF or DPF thingys biding its time to bite me on the bum.
Quite agree gordonbennet.
I think the Duster only makes any sense when it's second hand and VERY cheap, which it enevitably will be after a couple of years.
I think I'd find the low NCPAP score more of a concern than the lack of bluetooth and electrically folding mirrors.
I've just checked the EuroNCPAP site and my 11 year old Octavia actually scores higher (4 stars) than a new Duster (3 stars). My Yeti however rates the full 5 stars!
Edited by Seant on 09/11/2012 at 20:38
|
Seant, the point about Dacias lower spec Dusters is that some people actually want lower spec
I can certainly see a niche for a basic "no nonsense" type of car. I am however old enough to remember the last lot of Dacia's sold over here and hope this current lot is better put together!
|
|
Oh yes, i remember THOSE Dacias, and i also remember when people took the mickey out of those oh so funny Hondas Datsuns Toyotas and Skodas, and more recently those weird Hyundai thingys.
|
|
No one has mentioned a 2WD VW Tiguan. Not sure whether this is in your budget or not but my cousin has one and reckons to get 50-55 mpg on a run. Other than that it is like driving a Golf but from a higher driving position.
|
|
|
|
The difference is that Dacia is owned by Renault, which is hardly renowned for the quality of their cars. These other makes made a point of making cheap, reliable cars with good customer service to improve their reputation to increase sales, not something the French manufacturers are known for IMHO.
I would like to be pleasantly surprised, given its high time for some basic (but dependable) cars to come on the market, given the hard times we're currently facing - given that, I still fail to understand why no other mainstream makes aren't making some of the A/B/C class cars with a very basic variant, sort of the Ford "popular" of old (no vinyl seat please!).
|
I still fail to understand why no other mainstream makes aren't making some of the A/B/C class cars with a very basic variant, sort of the Ford "popular" of old (no vinyl seat please!).
Presumably, Skoda's and Chevrolet's positioning below VW and Opel/Vauxhall aren't basic enough?
There's plenty of room for the Chinese though.
|
I still fail to understand why no other mainstream makes aren't making some of the A/B/C class cars with a very basic variant, sort of the Ford "popular" of old (no vinyl seat please!).
Presumably, Skoda's and Chevrolet's positioning below VW and Opel/Vauxhall aren't basic enough?
There's plenty of room for the Chinese though.
The "basic" models could do away with:-
- Air conditioning;
- Fancy ICE (basic radio/CD/controls with just two speakers in the front doors);
- Electric windows;
- Central locking;
- Remote boot/filler cap release;
- Dimmable internal lights (i.e. the control boxes to do so);
- Rev counters;
- Alloy wheels or anything other than 70 profile tyres (and 13in wheels for up to superminis, 14in for Focus sized cars);
- Body-coloured bumpers/wing mirrors (easily done - just don't paint them!);
- Less sound insulation;
- Anything other than basic engines (no TFSIs/stop-start/fancy diesels) - the reduced weight/power requirements from not having many of the above (and the basic engines themselves) would mean they could lower emissions.
I agree though that this means many might have to be manufactured in poorer countries, which for them, would be good, to help them be more prosperous (sell them cheaper at home than abroad), whilst we concentrate on making more higher-end stuff.
|
|
Wouldn't disagree with any of your list. But I'm not sure if deleting these things would reduce the cost of a vehicle sufficiently to make it attractive to buyers.
|
|
|
The "basic" models could do away with:-
- Air conditioning;
- Fancy ICE (basic radio/CD/controls with just two speakers in the front doors);
- Electric windows;
- Central locking;
- Remote boot/filler cap release;
- Dimmable internal lights (i.e. the control boxes to do so);
- Rev counters;
- Alloy wheels or anything other than 70 profile tyres (and 13in wheels for up to superminis, 14in for Focus sized cars);
- Body-coloured bumpers/wing mirrors (easily done - just don't paint them!);
- Less sound insulation;
- Anything other than basic engines (no TFSIs/stop-start/fancy diesels) - the reduced weight/power requirements from not having many of the above (and the basic engines themselves) would mean they could lower emissions.
I had plently of cars like this when I was younger. I especially remember a 1978 Ford Fiesta Pop with vinyl seats, 1 wing mirror and a manual (squeezy bulb) type windcscreen washer. I then stepped up to a 1978 VW Derby (polo with a boot), which had cloth covered seats, a radio and 2 wing mirrors!
All a far cry from todays cars.
Must say though Skoda recently sold a new 5 door Octavia hatchback, with the old 8V 1.6 MPi engine, for <£10K. A true bargain indeed, despite the outmoded engine. A rather better prospect than anything put together by Dacia I suspect.
Edited by Seant on 10/11/2012 at 14:35
|
|
My first car was a 1 litre Micra from 1996 - the only things on the list that it did have (it was one model up from the bottom of the range, which didn't have any) was the filler cap remote release, the body-coloured bumpers/wing mirrors and it had 175/60 R13 wheels/tyres instead of the standard 155/70 R13's. It also didn't have power steering (never needed it - it weighed only 750kg unlaiden). The only real issue would be that it only got a 2* NCAP rating on the newer system (it was never designed as such originally), but cars like the Hyundai i10 look about the same, so I'm sure modern methods ould be ok.
It could be done only 15 years ago, so why not now. I'm sure they could've updated the engine to be better on the CO2 (it produced about 150g/km and 47mpg mixed [I could achieve 52mpg on this]). Lots of other expensive stuff we buy today (TVs, etc) will in a few years be much cheaper to produce - I remember paying £420 for a 23in LCD TV (only HD ready at 768p) 5 years ago, now you can get much better ones for only £200, and cheap make (probably acceptable picture quality) at much less.
|
Lots of other expensive stuff we buy today (TVs, etc) will in a few years be much cheaper to produce
That's because the marginal cost of producing a television or a mobile phone is small. Not so with cars. You have over a tonne of aluminium and steel in a modern car, lots of it made from precision castings. Even the energy cost of producing a tonne a high grade steel or aluminium isn't trivial.
Energy and commodity prices have a long term upward trend. Car prices are not going to follow electronics prices where the bulk of the cost is in R&D, and establishing state-of-the-art manufacturing processes.
|
|
|
|
I still fail to understand why no other mainstream makes aren't making some of the A/B/C class cars with a very basic variant
Probably because the savings aren't as great they used to be. From a mechanical and electrical perspective, the original Ford Fiesta was a very simple car. This is where the real savings are made.
A modern car must meet strigent emissions limits (so replacing the ECU and fuel injection system with a carb and dizzy isn't an option). Ditto brakes-ESP and ABS are mandatory. Toss in air bags and seatbelt pretensioners and you can see that a lot of your costs are essentially fixed.
If you ditch your interior soft touch plastics, you end up with a car that is almost as expensive as a mid range car-but feels cheap. Not a great combination.
Dacias will be cheap because they're made in Romania where labour costs are low. Like Skoda, the raison d'etre for buying the company is to export jobs on the sly.
|
|
I'm not sure that the basic versions would sell very well: we Brits like our extra gadgets, and we're also suckers for up-selling. In the 70s and 80s most mass-produced models were offered in a very basic version (no chrome, only one sun visor etc) which sold mainly to fleet buyers so that they could differentiate junior reps (1.3 basic) from more senior reps (1.6 L) and area sales managers (2.0 GL). Private buyers would usually pay a little more for the L or GL to avoid the neighbours saying things like 'Oh, I didn't know they did a basic version'.
Personally I'm not worried about image (hence the Skoda and a saving of £7.000 over an Audi with the same mechanicals), and I can do wirhout alloy wheels (and will do in the windter months) - but I wouldn't be without, for example, aircon and remote central locking.
|
|
Thats a fair point Avant, but we're not considering a woefully underpowered thin tin bath which is what Escort Popular and Cortina1.3L were, dreadful things...i well recall the first lean burn Escort mk4 1.4L...so lacking in power that a run up was required to get them on the transporter, almost as bad as the unfunny joke that is was the 3 cylinder Corsa, feeble took on new meaning there, did no one test drive these contraptions before agreeing to buy?, presumably so unless they were on day release without a carer.
The 80's and 90's saw some good cars, probably the best two decades for private car owners, before the mobile Gameboy became the norm...and before cringeworthy names and abbreviations were given to all this must have junk....
This buzz word rubbish is everywhere, if i hear the word ''App'' again spoken in a sing song urging voice in a radio or TV advert i may explode, 'don't you have the latest mobile interface with umpteen G's?' whatever they may be...er no thanks you couldn't pay me enough.
Many of us want decent but simple engines and robust transmissions, durable and powerful enough, competent pliable suspensions sitting on sensible tyres that don't cost £200 apiece and don't shake your fillings loose, is there anything more sad than seeing the owner of a blinged up image badged car buying Chinese rubbish or down the second hand tyre shop when he finds he can't afford the upkeep on the toy.
What we don't all want or rather the option to do without is the faff stuff, Command or i-Drive carp, all presumably supposed to impress (small boys?), all clever in its own way but of no interest whatsoever to thousands of us, all linked via the cars brain, all designed with a lifespan to just exceed the makers warranty, we don't want it, we're not having it, and we're sure as hell not paying for it, either up front or later in fixing it.
|
What we don't all want or rather the option to do without is the faff stuff, Command or i-Drive carp, all presumably supposed to impress (small boys?), all clever in its own way but of no interest whatsoever to thousands of us, all linked via the cars brain, all designed with a lifespan to just exceed the makers warranty, we don't want it, we're not having it, and we're sure as hell not paying for it, either up front or later in fixing it.
gordonbennet, I imagine that is the very reason car manufacturers provide choice, in the form of a range. My current car is relatively well equipped with "faff stuff" (bluetooth, satnav, DAB radio etc), whereas I could have gone for the botttom of the range - "E" model, should I have wished to do without such extras. I do however appreciate (and use on a daily basis) the ability to listen to Test Match Special in stereo and the option to stream music via bluetooth from my phone. I also make daily use of the SD card integrated into my cars stereo - nothing quite like a Roald Dahl read book to pass the time on a long journey.
Likewise the built in Satnav has taken me the length and breadth of the counrty, with relative ease and has reminded me, where neccesary, of the prevailing speed limit on an unfamiliar road. Of course in the past I would have simply used a map (or local knowledge), but the satnav provides a genuinely useful extra layer of functionality.
My other car is not blessed with the equipment levels of the newer car and I find myself replicating the useful features with my phone. This small device, with the judicious use of "apps" provides satnav, broadcast through the car stereo with an "old fashioned" cassette apaptor, streams music over 3G and allows me to access a range of online / DAB only radio stations. Compard to my first Nokia this is progress indeed.
Edited by Seant on 11/11/2012 at 12:48
|
|
My phone makes can text and make calls-which is all any self-respecting phone should attempt to do. It's also small, robust, and the battery lasts for a week. 'smart' phones strike me as clumsy, and if you use the GPS, the battery life lasts about as long as a king size cigarette.
On the whole, I agree with Gordon. But I'm not sure that enough buyers share our sentiments. People talk the talk about appreciating quality, but Honda and Toyota have seen their market share plummet in the UK. Bling sells.
|
My phone makes can text and make calls-which is all any self-respecting phone should attempt to do. It's also small, robust, and the battery lasts for a week. 'smart' phones strike me as clumsy, and if you use the GPS, the battery life lasts about as long as a king size cigarette.
On the whole, I agree with Gordon. But I'm not sure that enough buyers share our sentiments. People talk the talk about appreciating quality, but Honda and Toyota have seen their market share plummet in the UK. Bling sells.
Hi unthrottled - The benefit of a smartphone for me is that in addition to making calls and texting, I also have the option to make free video and/or voice calls (Skpye) and send / receive email "on the go", in place of texts. This again is free and avoids the extortionate cost involved in sending picture / multimedia messages.
Battery life is largely irrelevant, as I wouild only tend to use the GPS functionality of my phone, when it is plugged in and charging (from the cigarette lighter socket in the car), via a generic micro USB charging cable. This does I believe mirror the situtation with most standalone satnav's.
I do accept however that my current phone is not small, but again this was a choice, born out of making the best of its capabilities.
Edited by Seant on 11/11/2012 at 17:18
|
|
Sad, but true. Car manufacturers are like politicians - all the listen to are the "floating voters" (or those who change makes often in the case of cars). If you've always bought a Honda, why do they need to bother doing anything for you?
gordonbennet - my Dad had one of those mkIV Escort 1.4 (lean burn) - they were so slow, we almost had a couple of accidents whilst getting onto roundabouts! I still find it amusing that it had a rear spoiler - no idea why, given it had 75bhp! Plus it would set the alarm (b***** awful horn!) off every time you opened the boot unless you unlocked the driver's side door first! Utterly useless car.
|
gordonbennet - my Dad had one of those mkIV Escort 1.4 (lean burn) - they were so slow, we almost had a couple of accidents whilst getting onto roundabouts! I still find it amusing that it had a rear spoiler - no idea why, given it had 75bhp! Plus it would set the alarm (b***** awful horn!) off every time you opened the boot unless you unlocked the driver's side door first! Utterly useless car.
The time they were current i drove a car transporter for a company who shifted the majority of the rental cars in the country, the 1.4's were truly dire, i bet you hated that thing more than your Dad though..;)...oddly enough the 1.3 petrol version with manual choke wasn't nearly as bad, never worked that out, probably not lean burn?
They were replaced generally by 1.8 engined Escorts in most cases, these were still fairly basic spec but by having that lovely engine transformed the car into a capable and useful general purpose car.
Rover had a similar low spec model large engined model at the time, the 220SLI obviously with a 2litre petrol, again effortless and so different to the 1.4 and 1.6 versions.
This is what i was trying to get at earlier, my ideal cars are fairly simple but with a slightly overpowered engine, not as i want to drive like a lunatic all the time but an extra bit of useable torque makes for pleasant easy and safer driving.
My own MB which like me is getting on a bit is from the same mould, 3.2 inline 6 petrol, basic 4 speed auto in coupe body, no aircon (nor climate control aaargh that silly term) or electric seats or cruise or traction control, took some finding i can tell you as most W124 coupes were well specced up...and the things that arn't fitted haven't gone wrong..;)
We had a MB W124 estate with every single option ticked by the previous first owner, in 95 new it cost £31k basic and had £19k's worth of extras, we had full history with the car from day one, almost every expensive extra had failed at least once during its first owners tenure (aircon replaced twice and on its last legs again), the car had cost virtually as much as its original price to maintain over 9 years, not a service under £500 and many bills way into 4 figures, should have photocopied history and kept, would have been interesting to scan and display for perusal...the only car i would ever consider with that sort of electronic complication would have to be made in Japan, either by Toyota (or Lexus badged) or Honda.
Edited by gordonbennet on 11/11/2012 at 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
not everyone wants climate control (what a ludicrous title, like calling chips french fries)
Eh? You are aware of the massive difference between a basic airco / heater setup and a climate control system, aren't you?
I'll give you a clue. Once you've lived with the latter, you won't ever want to go back to the former.
|
I'll give you a clue. Once you've lived with the latter, you won't ever want to go back to the former.
My current and previous car have/had climate control - previous to that they were just basic aircon/heater. I much prefer the basic system - it never steams up and never suddenly blows air out of the face level vents.
I can live with adjusting the heater control gradually in spring and autumn - I'd never pay extra for climate control if I had a choice.
Now, my cars spend more time in manual override than actually using the climate control as automatic.
|
|
|
I'll give you a clue. Once you've lived with the latter, you won't ever want to go back to the former.
Lorries have had this system for years, more trouble than its worth, as rightly said, all of a sudden the thing will steam all the blessed windows up for no reason Volvo in particular, invariably goes expensively wrong and never fixed faulty after a few years.
Like auto wipers, auto headlights and electric handbrakes, its something i don't want and will do my utmost to avoid, never had a problem using a combination of the usual 3 heater controls with a simple on/off aircon switch and a recirculation button, when i can't manage that simple task i'll glady walk down the nick and hand me licence in.
Those who like extras like this i have no argument with you, each to their own, i don't want it.
Edited by gordonbennet on 12/11/2012 at 16:44
|
|
CLimate control is great. It is on alll the time and it works.
If it does nt work then something is wrong, either get it fixed or read the manual.
|
CLimate control is great. It is on alll the time and it works.
If it does nt work then something is wrong, either get it fixed or read the manual.
My basic aircon used to be on all the time - but worked better on Vauxhalls than climate does on Subarus or Hyundais.
Other owners of the same models report the same so it's not broken nor in need of reading the manual.
Climate doesn't do anything basic aircon can't do - other than make the adjustments itself rather than the driver doing the adjusting - I suspect it's not the adjusting that's the issue, probably electronics that just isn't smart enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
