replacement car question

[LikeClockwork]

Want this one.....

 

[twain]

the amount of pages this thread has accumulated within the time the OP started just shows how much of a headache getting a new or used car is! as LGFM said - for every positive there's a negative.

i'm starting to look and its done my head in already - i hate looking for cars and i hate talking to car dealers even more so. i just see lies pouring from every orifice for the sake of making their sale.
at the end of the day, you can do as much research as you like but its still a gamble.
the only constants that keep popping up for me are:

- Honda/Toyota and some older Nissans for reliability
- French cars - stick it up your ar*e
- Vauxhalls - i get the feeling the older ones last (the amount of cavaliers/astras/vectras i still see on the road shows me that they are pretty robust)

I always look to see what taxi ranks show up and also what the police poodle about in.
our company cars are all VW golfs and all do very high mileage, i never hear them complain about them.

the thing with cheap used cars is the VED. upwards of £250/year on something like a Vauxhall astra (98 - 2012 version).

i keep looking to the Honda Jazz for us (small family - 1 child (plus another due next month).
currently running a 2001 Micra, which is aging and the sensors are all starting to play up (see my other most recent posts to see that ballache).

and as someone else said on here, i would happliy do without a car. the expense seems so massivley out of proportion.

the things i bear in mind after i have established what i need are:

essential info:

- initial outlay (how much to actually buy the sodding thing)
- Vehicle Tax Rates - how much will i pay (i looked at this to help do some quick sums: http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/ro ... x-changes/ )
- MPG
- reliability - Whatcar is a good source of summarising potential issues and getting an idea of possible service costs/faults.
- insurance group

other useful info (i usually only go this far if i've found a car i like the look of):

- parts availability - doing a quick search on ebay can help you see what sort of prices spares go for which can give you an idea of what repairs might cost (and also what might need replacing on your car).
- also, if its a car that you can get a Haynes manual for, that could help you more than you realise.
- forum search - if there is a dedicated internet forum on the type of car you are looking at, they can prove to be a massive source of help (and cheap parts/diy solutions) should you need anything like that.

at the end of the day, you need a car thats reliable, safe and economical (practically and financially). i couldn't care less about the colour or the looks, no matter how pretty a car is, there is no value to it really other than getting you from A to B quicker than a horse and cart.

good luck with your search - you'll f*ckin' need it :twisted:

 

[Alison]

Want this one.....

Damn you beat me to it

Alison

 

[LikeClockwork]

I'm not trying to belittle all the really useful info the guys are giving you, but I just thought it was time to lighten things up a little so you didn't go totally stark ravin' bonkers....

Girl Power :twisted:

 

[mattr]

I'm not buying that differences betwixt make are purely inventions by the press, and a blind willing audience.

Most of it is, the actual differences in number of breakdowns between the best and worst car in any particular class is tiny compared to the number of cars sold. Especially those from the last 5 or 6 years.

Most of the reputation for unreliable or reliable cars is either historic, based on how the dealers treat the customers, how much the repairs cost (and how long they take), what actually failed, how often they actually manage to fix the issue first time (or at all) and things like that. Not if the car is reliable or not.

Some manufacturers are still reaping the rewards of being premium, high quality cars in the 70's and 80's. They can charge a premium for their cars, provide a better service (as they are making more money/car and don't have to discount to make sales) and so on. All whilst selling a car, that to anyone who knows what they are looking at, and what customers really do with their cars, has no more content/technical superiority/performance than your boggo hatch back. But the badge costs an extra 20%.

 

[Neil]

I'm not buying that differences betwixt make are purely inventions by the press, and a blind willing audience.

Most of it is, the actual differences in number of breakdowns between the best and worst car in any particular class is tiny compared to the number of cars sold. Especially those from the last 5 or 6 years.

Most of the reputation for unreliable or reliable cars is either historic, based on how the dealers treat the customers, how much the repairs cost (and how long they take), what actually failed, how often they actually manage to fix the issue first time (or at all) and things like that. Not if the car is reliable or not.

Some manufacturers are still reaping the rewards of being premium, high quality cars in the 70's and 80's. They can charge a premium for their cars, provide a better service (as they are making more money/car and don't have to discount to make sales) and so on. All whilst selling a car, that to anyone who knows what they are looking at, and what customers really do with their cars, has no more content/technical superiority/performance than your boggo hatch back. But the badge costs an extra 20%.

Don't get me wrong - in the first 2 or 3 years, maybe 5 years, these day, with new cars, I'll buy, there's probably not much in it.

But at that point in the thread we were talking about cars from around 2003 / 2004.

And bearing in mind, the post I was replying to, he started off saying he wouldn't touch a certain make, then concludes saying there's no bloody difference.

Point being, breakdown stats will just show that - breakdowns. Now whilst I don't want to let down by any car like that, there's a whole load more to the ownership experience than just that.

Of course, condition matters, as does how it's been maintained. And of course, everybody has an opinion, and will (whether we recognise and accept it, or otherwise) have very natural behavioural and cognitive bias because of our own experience. "We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are."

With older cars, you're not necessarily talking about catastrophic failures that are going to leave you stranded at the roadside, you're really considering those things that are going to leave you with more pain at MOT time, or niggling little problems that keep sapping the life out of your view of the car, as time progresses. Some cars have certain tendencies to certain things failing or wearing over time. Some cars have some design flaws or weaknesses that mean some failures or problems are likely over the time axis.

And yes, I buy, that some marques, and some peoples' opinions on marques are coloured by, and still living from / trading off an earlier era where there was truly some notable difference in quality.

Brand new - I'll buy, yes, there's probably nothing huge, other than mainly luck - and perhaps quality control and some aspect of maintenance that'll leave you stood at the side of the road. With cars older cars, though, and I'm not buying you can totally remove the marque / model from the equation. Sure, condition, maintenance and how it's treated are probably significant factors - but it's a stretch to just say breakdown figures show no significant trend, therefore cars that are around 8-10 years old, all other things equal, are much of a muchness.

Of that sort of age, I know there are makes / models I'd consider - accepting evaluation of condition and maintenance - and others I'd not touch with a bargepole, whether looked at, or otherwise - and that's not based on aesthetics, I rarely let that get in the way, when I'm considering a car.